Intermediary service test: procuring orders for foreign principals was held to be the provider's own main service, not taxable.

Procuring orders for foreign principals was treated as the appellant's own main service, not intermediary service under the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. The amended intermediary definition covers only a person who arranges or facilitates a main service or supply between others and excludes a person providing the main service on his own account. As the appellant merely identified Indian buyers and procured orders for overseas principals, Rule 9 did not apply and the service was governed by the general place-of-provision rule. The disputed commission was therefore outside the service tax net as export of service.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's activity of procuring orders for foreign principals constituted intermediary services under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, so as to attract Rule 9, or whether it was the appellant's own main service falling under Rule 3 and therefore outside the service tax net as export of service.

Analysis: The appellant's only activity was identifying Indian buyers and procuring orders for principals located outside India. The amended definition of intermediary covers a person who arranges or facilitates a main service or a supply of goods between two or more persons, but excludes a person who provides the main service on his own account. On the facts found, the appellant was not arranging some other service as an intermediary; procuring orders for foreign principals was itself the main service rendered. Rule 3 is the general rule fixing the place of provision at the recipient's location, while Rule 9 applies only to specified services including intermediary services. Since the appellant's activity did not answer the description of intermediary service, Rule 9 had no application.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to service tax on the disputed commission, the demand was unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per law.

---