No ITC on IGST for Free Clinical Trial Drugs | AAR
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 15 July, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: PPD Pharmaceutical Development India (P.) Ltd., In re - [2025] 175 taxmann.com 711 (AAR-MAHARASHTRA)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- D.P. Gojamgunde & Ms Priya Jadhav, Member
Facts of the Case
The applicant, acting as a clinical research organisation, imported sample drugs for clinical trials in India and supplied such drugs free of cost to hospitals and clinics. The applicant sought a ruling on the admissibility of input tax credit (ITC) of IGST paid on import of these sample drugs. The applicant submitted that the sample drugs were supplied without any consideration. The issue for consideration was whether ITC of IGST paid on the import of such drugs, supplied free of cost, would be admissible, and the matter was accordingly placed before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Maharashtra.
AAR Held
The AAR Maharashtra held that the drugs supplied by the applicant free of cost to hospitals and clinics were in the nature of free samples or supplies without consideration, and therefore, ITC in respect of such goods would not be available in terms of Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act. The AAR further held that the applicant was not entitled to take credit of IGST paid under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the import of such sample drugs. The ruling was in favour of the revenue.
List of Cases Referred to
- Kardex India Storage Solution (P.) Ltd., In re [2020] 116 taxmann.com 865/81 GST 339/35 GSTL 424 (AAR – Karnataka) (para 2.16)
- Umax Packaging (A unit of Uma Polymers Ltd.), In re [2018] 100 taxmann.com 398/71 GST 511/20 GSTL 677 (AAR – Rajasthan) (para 2.17)
- Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE & ST 2022-VIL-790-CESTAT-AHM-CE (para 2.18)
- Thermax Culligan Water Technologies Ltd. v. CCE 2014 (312) E.L.T. 148 (Tri.-Bombay) (para 2.19)
- CCE v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 105 (Gujarat) (para 2.20)
- Kemwell Biopharma Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & ST, LTU 2017 (47) S.T.R. 70 (Tri. – Bangalore) (para 2.27)
- CCE v. Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd. 2010 (258) E.L.T. 141 (Tri. – Bangalore) (para 2.27).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
