Licensing services prevail over education classification for digital platform access under GST, with exemption denied on strict construction.

A non-exclusive licence to access Coursera's proprietary digital platform was held not to be an education service under Heading 9992 because the supplier did not itself impart instruction, training, coaching, or education. The exemption under Sl. No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) was therefore unavailable, as exemption provisions must be construed strictly and the recipient was not the State Government. The supply was instead classified under Heading 9973 as licensing services, because its predominant character was the grant of access to intellectual property-based platform content, and the more specific service description prevailed over Heading 9984.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the supply of Coursera User Licenses was classifiable as education service under Heading 9992; (ii) whether exemption under Sl. No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) was available; and (iii) whether the supply was more appropriately classifiable under Heading 9973 rather than Heading 9984.

Issue (i): Whether the supply of Coursera User Licenses was classifiable as education service under Heading 9992.

Analysis: The supply was only a non-exclusive user licence enabling access to digital content hosted on Coursera's proprietary platform. The applicant did not impart education, training, coaching, or instruction, nor did it assume any instructional responsibility. The content was provided through third-party universities and instructors, while the applicant's role was confined to facilitating access. A mere right of access to content is not the same as the supply of education service.

Conclusion: The supply was not classifiable under Heading 9992 and the answer was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether exemption under Sl. No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) was available.

Analysis: The exemption was unavailable because the supply was not an education service under Heading 9992. In addition, the recipient was an autonomous body and not the State Government, and the arrangement was for access to a user licence rather than the conduct of a training programme in the strict sense. Exemption notifications are to be construed strictly and cannot be extended beyond their plain terms.

Conclusion: The exemption under Sl. No. 72 was not available and the answer was against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the supply was more appropriately classifiable under Heading 9973 rather than Heading 9984.

Analysis: The predominant element of the transaction was the grant of a licence to access Coursera's intellectual property-based digital platform. That character answered to licensing services under Heading 9973 more specifically than the residual category of online content services under Heading 9984. The transaction was treated as a distributor or subcontractor arrangement on the basis of the licence granted for access, and the more specific description was preferred over the more general one.

Conclusion: The supply was correctly classifiable under Heading 9973, and Heading 9984 was not the preferred classification.

Final Conclusion: The ruling upheld taxability at the applicable rate under Heading 9973 and denied exemption, while rejecting classification as education service.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a supply consists only of a non-exclusive licence to access a proprietary digital platform, without imparting education or training, it is to be classified by its predominant licensing character under the most specific service description, and an exemption framed for education services cannot be extended to such a supply.

---