AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titutions; the appellants were to be reimbursed marketing and operating expenses and management fee calculated at 10% of the expenses. On the basis of an inquiry conducted, the Department was of the opinion that as the appellant is rendering services which culminate prior to the proceeding of Indian students for study in Australia, the services are very much rendered in India and therefore, the same cannot be held as export of service and the appellants are liable to pay service tax under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" under Section 65(105) (zzb) read with Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period up to 30.06.2012; for the period from 01.07.2012, the appellants are required to pay service tax in terms of Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994; a Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2014, covering the period 2009-10 to 2013-14 was issued to the appellants; similarly, a statement under Section 73 (1A) dated 03.05.2016, alleging that the services rendered by the appellants are Intermediary Services and as such the appellants are liable to pay service tax and they are not eligib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-VI Commissionerate v. M/S. A.Τ.Ε. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (8) G. S. T. L. 123 (Bom.) • The Commissioner Service Tax-VII v. M/s. Blue Star Ltd - 2018-TIOL-1976-HC-MUM-ST. • IBM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax - 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 436 (Tri. - Bang.) • M/s Paul Merchants Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2012 (12) TMI - 424 - CESTAT New Delhi (LB) 3. Learned Counsel submits as regards the period 27.02.2010 to 30.06.2012 that the Export of Service Rules were amended w.e.f. 27.02.2010 whereby the condition prescribed under Rule 3(2)(a) of Export of Service Rules, 2005 to the extent that service be provided from India and used outside India was omitted; he submits that consequentially, in order to qualify as export, the only condition which is required to be satisfied in terms of Rule 3(1)(iii) read with Rule 3(2) of Export of Service Rules, 2005 was that the service receiver should be located outside India and consideration for such service should be received in foreign exchange; in the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....). • M/s Sunrise Immigration Consultants Private Limited v. CCE & ST, Chandigarh - 2018 (5) TMI 1017-CESTAT Chandigarh. • Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India - 2021 (2) TMI 816 - Punjab and Haryana High Court. • M/s Medway Educational Consultant P. Ltd v. Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Delhi-West - 2024 (3) TMI 1178 (Tri. Del.) • M/s Valmiki Consultants Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Tax, Hyderabad - 2018 (11) TMI 1085 - CESTAT Hyderabad. • M/s Study Overseas Global (P) Ltd. v. CST Delhi - 2017 (5) TMI 887 - CESTAT New Delhi. 5. Learned Counsel submits also that Circular No.159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021 clarified that sub-contracting of a service is not an intermediary service; the Circular further clarifies that there is no change in the scope of intermediary services in the GST Regime vis-à-vis the Service Tax Regime. He relies on Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 (68) GSTL 3 (P&H) and M/s Ernst & Young Ltd. - 2023 (3) TMI 1117-Delhi High Court. 6. Learned Counsel further submits that services provided by the  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;necessary to enable SGIPL to provide the services to SingTel, whereas in the instant case, the appellant is clearly appointed as an agent of their principals. • Medway Educational Consultant Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Valmiki Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (supra); in these cases, the appellant was providing services directly to their clients i.e. colleges or universities, who were paying commission to the appellant, whereas in the instant case, the appellant is facilitating their principal in the provision of main service. • Genpact India (P) Ltd. (supra); in this case, the assessee was providing services directly to the third parties located outside India and as per the terms of master services, sub-contracting agreement various services were to be provided by the petitioner on a principal-to-principal basis; whereas in the instant case, the appellant is providing facilitation to its principal OCA under an agreement and the OCA was providing main service to the colleges. 8. Learned Authorized Representative takes us to different provisions of the Statute concerning the definition of "Intermediary" a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcelor France which is situated outside India and Arcelor India receives consideration in convertible foreign exchange. The service provided by Arcelor India is, therefore, delivered outside India and used outside India as is the requirement under the 2005 Export Rules prior to 01.03.2007 and Arcelor India provides services from India which are used outside India as is the requirement after 01.03.2007. It cannot, therefore, be doubted that Arcelor India provides "export of service" as contemplated under rule 3 of the 2005 Export Rules". We find that the arguments of the appellants are acceptable as the contract entered into by the appellants was with M/s OCA who in turn had entered into contract with Australian institutions/ universities for canvassing and procuring admission of the students. M/s OCA has engaged the appellants to help their work in India. In pursuit of the same, the appellants have contacted the students in India; explained the procedures of admission; helped in filling up the forms and payment of fees directly to the Australian universities. There is no contract between either the foreign univ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iably meant the location of the recipient. It was clarified that the words 'accrual of benefit' was not restricted to mere impact on the bottom-line of the person who pays for the service. It had to be given a harmonious interpretation in the context where the effective use and enjoyment of the service has been obtained. 49. The position becomes even clearer in the post July 2012 period during which the POPS Rules 2012 apply. As already noted, provision of telecommunication services does not have a specific rule and so Rule 3 of the POPS Rules, which is the default option, applies. In terms thereof, the place of provision of telecommunication service shall be the location of the recipient of service. 50. The decision of larger Bench of CESTAT in Paul Merchants Ltd v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra) may be referred to at this stage. The period with which the dispute in that case related to was between 1st July, 2003 and 30th June, 2007. It involved, therefore, the interpretation of the ESR 2005 as amended and applicable during the said period. There the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he instant case. The main service is rendered by M/s OCA to the foreign universities and the appellant helps M/s OCA as far as the Indian students are concerned; neither the appellant nor M/s OCA charged any amount from the Indian students. Therefore, in the circumstances, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the appellants can at best be held to be the sub-contractor or the sub-agent of M/s OCA and not an intermediary between the India students and the universities or the Indian students and M/s OCA. 14. We find that Circular No.159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021 issued by CBIC envisages that in respect of Intermediary Services, there should be a minimum of three parties and two distinct supplies i.e. main supply and ancillary supply; it also clarifies that a person involved in supply of main supply on principal-to-principal basis to another person cannot be considered as supplier of Intermediary Service. In the instant case, the appellants and M/s OCA are rendering the same service i.e. helping the students get admission in Australian universities and the appellants are rendering the same main service as M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng consideration for the same. Insofar as recruitment of students in India is concerned, IDP Australia has created the appellant as a fully owned subsidiary, and has sub-contracted the work to the appellant. Nothing has been brought on record in the show cause notice or in the order to show that the appellant has a direct contract with the foreign universities. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant is liasioning or acting as intermediary between the foreign universities and IDP Australia. All that is evident from the records is that the appellant is providing the services which have been sub-contracted to it by M/s IDP Australia. As a sub-contractor, it is receiving commission from the main contractor for its services. The main contractor - IDP Australia, in turn, is receiving commission from the foreign universities who pay a percentage of the tuition fee to IDP Australia. From the records, we find that Revenue has not established that the appellant is acting as an intermediary between M/s IDP Australia and the foreign universities, as alleged or held i....