TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yas, AAG assisted by Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari JUDGMENT (PER: CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. Both petitions involved common issues and, therefore, we are disposing both by this common order. 2. The issue involved is whether the services supplied by petitioner during the relevant period i.e. 2019-20 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9933/2024 and 2020-21 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9967/2024 qualifies as "intermediary" as alleged by the Department or do they qualify as "export" as the place of provision of services being outside taxable territory. FACTS: 3. Petitioner is a subsidiary of IDP Education Ltd., a publicly listed Australian Company (IDP Australia). IDP Australia has entered into agreements with various Foreign Universities, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia is obliged to provide to Foreign Universities. 3.3. Petitioner classified the services supplied by it to IDP Australia as export of services as defined under Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ' the IGST Act') and was claiming refund of IGST paid for such zero-rated supply as per Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act. 3.4. The Original as well as the Appellate Authority held a view that petitioner's services qualify as intermediary, and therefore, the place of its supply would be the location of petitioner, that is in India and hence denied export status and consequently denied refund of IGST claimed by petitioner. In addition to other grounds justifying invocation of writ remedy such as judicial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r facilitating any service but is engaged in providing service by itself to IDP Australia and, therefore, they are outside the ambit of the term 'intermediary', as defined under the IGST Act. b. Further, in petitioner's own case, the Ld. CESTAT vide Order dated 28th October 2021, examining the very same agreement has come to a conclusion, petitioner is not an intermediary. The law under the Service Tax regime as under the GST regime with respect to intermediaries has remained the same as admitted by CBEC Circular dated 20th September 2021. Further, the Revenue has accepted the CESTAT Order dated 28.10.2021. Further, in certain other jurisdictions in the GST regime, petitioner has been held to be exporter of services. In view of thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble Bombay High Court in petitioner's own case in IDP Education India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) with which we respectfully agree, it is clear that the services provided by petitioner are qua IDP Australia under specific contract or arrangement with it. Not more than two parties are involved in this arrangement, namely, petitioner and IDP Australia. For someone to be called an "Intermediary", there needs to be existence of three parties in the contract, in the absence of which, petitioner cannot be called as "Intermediary". In the present case, the services rendered by petitioner are only to IDP Australia and, therefore, certainly qualifies to be "Export" as held by CESTAT in the order referred above and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 8. W....