Pure-agent reimbursement under GST depends on strict Rule 33 conditions; stipend-linked receipts remained part of taxable consideration.

Rule 33 permits exclusion from the value of supply only where the supplier acts as a pure agent, the recipient authorises the third-party payment, the amount is separately indicated in the invoice, and the payment is incidental to the supplier's own supply. On the stated facts, the stipend and allied expenses were closely linked to the NEEM training arrangement, the facilitator bore the contractual responsibility for deployment and payment, and the receipts formed part of the consideration for the service rather than a pass-through reimbursement. The matter was also treated as capable of decision on merits despite objections based on the record. Consequently, the pure-agent exclusion was unavailable and the amounts remained taxable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal and the underlying advance ruling application were maintainable and whether the Authority was justified in proceeding to decide the matter on merits; (ii) whether the reimbursement received from the NEEM Trainer towards stipend and allied expenses was excludible from the value of supply as a payment made by a pure agent under Rule 33 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal and the underlying advance ruling application were maintainable and whether the Authority was justified in proceeding to decide the matter on merits.

Analysis: The record showed that the specimen agreement with the industry partner was sufficient to examine the controversy on merits. The objection that one agreement had expired or that the papers were incomplete did not justify refusing an answer where the core supply arrangement was continuing and the issue arose from the business model itself. The matter was therefore capable of adjudication, and the challenge to non-answer on technical grounds did not survive.

Conclusion: The application was maintainable and the controversy was required to be decided on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the reimbursement received from the NEEM Trainer towards stipend and allied expenses was excludible from the value of supply as a payment made by a pure agent under Rule 33 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Analysis: Rule 33 permits exclusion only where the supplier acts as a pure agent, the recipient authorises the payment to the third party, the payment is separately indicated in the invoice, and the procurement is in addition to the supplier's own supply. On the facts, the facilitator was the entity obliged under the NEEM framework and the contracts to deploy trainees, pay stipend, manage the training arrangement, and assume related responsibilities. The invoices reflected GST on the gross amount, the agreement did not establish clear authorisation by the trainer to pay stipend on its behalf, and the stipend-related receipts were part of the consideration for the deployment service rather than a distinct pass-through payment. The conditions of pure agency were therefore not met.

Conclusion: The reimbursement was not received in the capacity of a pure agent and was includible in the taxable value of supply.

Final Conclusion: The advance ruling was substantially affirmed, and the appeal failed because the amounts collected towards stipend and related expenses formed part of the taxable consideration for the supply made by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment can be excluded from the value of supply as a pure-agent reimbursement only when the statutory conditions of authorisation, separate invoicing, and a truly incidental third-party payment are strictly satisfied; where the amount is integrally connected with the supplier's own taxable service, it remains part of the taxable value.

---