https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360853 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that they were not an intermediary under Rule 2(f) of POPS Rules, 2012. The services provided were considered as an export of service to foreign clients, aligning with the appellant's argument. As the issues centered on POPS Rules, 2012 interpretation, the extended period of limitation was found inapplicable. The appellant was held liable for service tax on visa facilitation services post-July 2012 but not on referral services. No penalties were imposed, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. en-us Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2018 08:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360853 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that they were not an intermediary under Rule 2(f) of POPS Rules, 2012. The services provided were considered as an export of service to foreign clients, aligning with the appellant's argument. As the issues centered on POPS Rules, 2012 interpretation, the extended period of limitation was found inapplicable. The appellant was held liable for service tax on visa facilitation services post-July 2012 but not on referral services. No penalties were imposed, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360853