NEEM Facilitator denied pure agent status under Rule 33 for stipend reimbursements from industry partners

AAAR Karnataka held that the applicant cannot claim pure agent status under Rule 33 of CGST Rules for stipend reimbursements received from industry partners. The applicant, as a NEEM Facilitator, was obligated under NEEM Regulations to pay stipends to trainees and deploy them for training in their own interest. The court ruled that merely receiving reimbursement from the company does not establish pure agent relationship, as the facilitator's primary obligation to pay stipends arose from regulations, not on behalf of the company. The application was dismissed, confirming GST liability on reimbursement amounts.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant qualifies as a "pure agent" for the reimbursement received towards stipend paid to trainees.
2. Whether the reimbursement received against the cost of medical and accident insurance obtained for trainees is chargeable to GST.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Qualification as a "Pure Agent" for Stipend Reimbursement

Facts of the Case:
- The appellant, an approved NEEM (National Employability Enhancement Mission) Facilitator, provides on-the-job training to enhance employability.
- The appellant executes agreements with trainees and industry partners, receiving reimbursement for stipends paid to trainees and charging an administrative fee.

Appellant's Arguments:
- Under Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, expenditures incurred on behalf of the recipient should be excluded from the value of supply if conditions are met.
- The appellant claims compliance with Rule 33, arguing that the agreement with the industry partner authorizes them to act as a pure agent.
- The appellant contends that the timing of stipend receipt and disbursement does not affect their status as a pure agent.

AAR's Decision:
- The AAR ruled that the appellant does not qualify as a pure agent for the stipend reimbursement, making it chargeable to GST.
- The AAR added a restriction that the expenditure must be incurred first and only claimed later to qualify as a pure agent.

Appellant's Appeal:
- The appellant argues that the AAR misconstrued Rule 33 and added an unwarranted restriction.
- The appellant cites previous rulings where similar reimbursements were not chargeable to GST.

Discussion and Findings:
- The appellate authority examined the NEEM Regulations, which mandate the appellant to pay stipends to trainees.
- The appellant's role involves deploying trainees, paying stipends, and issuing training completion certificates, making them responsible under NEEM Regulations.
- The agreement with the industry partner does not indicate authorization for the appellant to act as a pure agent for stipend payments.
- The appellate authority concluded that the appellant does not meet the first and third conditions of Rule 33, as the stipend payment is an obligation of the appellant, not the industry partner.
- The appellate authority found that the appellant's activities are undertaken in their own interest as a NEEM Facilitator, not as a pure agent of the industry partner.

Conclusion:
- The appellate authority upheld the AAR's decision, stating that the appellant does not qualify as a pure agent for stipend reimbursement, making it chargeable to GST.

Issue 2: Reimbursement for Medical and Accident Insurance

Facts of the Case:
- The appellant also sought a ruling on whether the reimbursement received against the cost of medical and accident insurance obtained for trainees is chargeable to GST.

AAR's Decision:
- The AAR ruled that the appellant does not qualify as a pure agent for the reimbursement received against the cost of medical and accident insurance, making it chargeable to GST.

Appellant's Appeal:
- The appellant did not specifically address this issue in their appeal.

Discussion and Findings:
- The appellate authority did not provide a separate analysis for this issue, as the appellant's primary focus was on the stipend reimbursement.

Conclusion:
- The appellate authority upheld the AAR's decision, stating that the reimbursement received against the cost of medical and accident insurance is chargeable to GST.

Order:
- The appellate authority upheld the order No. KAR ADRG 07/2022 dated 8th March 2022 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority.
- The appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed on all accounts.

---