AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Respondent constitute export of services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 4. Additionally, the Show Cause Notice dated 17th December, 2015 (hereinafter, 'SCN') has also been held to be barred by time, vide the impugned order. 5. The issues raised in the present appeal are two-fold: (i) Firstly, whether the present appeal is maintainable or not, as the question of taxability is being raised. (ii) Secondly, whether Respondent's services are intermediary services or not. 6. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 10th November, 2025 the Court had requested ld. Counsels for the parties to find out the status of the decision in W.P. (C) 10189/2025 titled Commissioner DGST Delhi vs. Global Opportunities Pvt. Ltd. wherein the question relating to support services being provided for admission to foreign universities was held to be export of services and not educational services. 7. Additionally, ld. Counsels for the parties were directed to examine the aforesaid judgment and verify if any SLP has been filed against the same. 8. Today, Mr. Shubham Tyagi, ld. SSC for the Appellant, has submitted upon inquiry being made, that he does not have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vider. Since M/s NNCCPL are located in India, the place of provision of services is in the taxable territory. Therefore, the contention of M/s NNCCPL that the services provided by them were export of services in terms of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, is not legally sustainable and they were required to discharge their Service Tax liability on the said commission received from Foreign Education Services Providers during the period 01.07.2012 to 30.09.2015 xxx 6.5. On examining the activities of M/s NNCCPL in the light of Rule 2 (f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and the guiding principle discussed in para 6.4 above, it is clear that they were providing intermediary services as they had been authorized by the Foreign Education Service Providers to arrange and facilitate the activity of student recruitment in India. Thus, M/ s NNCCPL were required to discharge their Service Tax liability on the commission received by them from Foreign Education Service Providers, who were their Principals." 16. On the above basis, the SCN proposed to raise a demand of service tax of Rs. 15,58,58,003/- along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. Thus, the place of provision in the instant case is the location of the Noticee, which happens to be in India and not outside India. As place of provision in the case is within India it cannot be termed as a case of export. A.10.6. Thus I find that since the services provided by the Noticee have all the attributes of 'Intermediary services', as defined under Rule 2(f) of POPS Rules, 2012. The place of provision of such services as per Rule 9(c) of POPS Rules, 2012 is the location of the service provider, which is in India. Hence, no case is made out for export of services. The Noticee have been providing Intermediary services which are a taxable service. As such, the Noticee are liable to pay service tax on the services being rendered by them." 21. Further, the Adjudicating Authority also held that the SCN was issued within the limitation period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Thereafter, the demand was confirmed in the following terms: "ORDER (i) hereby confirm the demand for Service Tax amounting Rs. 15,58,58,003/- (Rupees Fifteen Crore, Fifty Eight Lakh, Fifty Eight Thousand and Three only), inclusive of Education Cess and Secondary & Highe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The agreement for the same is between appellant and foreign universities. There is no agreement of appellant with Indian students. The amount in question is received from foreign universities in convertible foreign exchange and not from Indian students. The students are paying fees in case of getting admission, to the foreign university only. These observations are sufficient for us to hold that Indian students are not the service recipients of the impugned services rendered by the appellants. The place of provision is wrongly held to be in taxable territory (India). Hence foreign consultancy services provided by an assessee amounts to 'Export of services' and they are outside the ambit of service tax and they are wrongly alleged as being rendered by intermediary. xxx 31. Coming to "export of service" post 1st July, 2012, the basic principle to be seen is who is the recipient of the service, whether the place of provision of service is outside India and the party abroad is deriving benefit from the service in India. The High Court of Delhi in Verizon Communication India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, ST, Delhi - 2018 (8) GSTL 32 (Del.) observed that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stomer Is not your customer. When a service is rendered to a third party at the behest of your customer, ST/53328/2018 the service recipient is your customer and not the third party. For example, when a florist delivers a bouquet on your request to your friend for which you make the payment, as far as the florist is concerned you are the customer and not your friend.* xxx 35. In the light of entire above discussion, we held that appellants are wrongly held as intermedia in terms of Rule 2(f) of Place of Provision Rules, 2012. The services rendered amounts to 'Export of Service' in terms of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules. Hence Rule 9 of Place of Provision Rules has wrongly been invoked. Appellant is, therefore, not liable to pay service tax on foreign Consultancy fee. The show cause notice is otherwise held to be barred by time. Resultantly, the order under challenge is set aside and the appeal is hereby allowed." 24. Thus, in terms of the above decision, the findings of the CESTAT is that under Rule 9 of POPS rules, the services provided by the Respondent constitute export of services and they are not intermediary services. 25. Heard. This very issue has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: "9. Place of provision of specified services.- The place of provision of following services shall be the location of the service provider:- (a) Services provided by a banking company, or a financial institution, or a non-banking financial company, to account holders; (b) Online information and database access or retrieval services; (c) Intermediary services; (d) Service consisting of hiring of means of transport, upto a period of one month." 29. The provisions under the IGST Act have already been considered by this Court in in W.P.(C) 10189/ 2025 titled Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST Delhi v. Global Opportunities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative. In the said decision, the Court has also analysed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ernst & Young Ltd v. Add. Commr. CGST Appeals-II, Delhi, 2023 (73) G.S.T.L. 161 (Del.), and the decision of Bombay High Court in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025:BHC-NAG:2166-DB. 30. In Ernst & Young Ltd (supra), the Court held as under: "18. The principal question to be addressed is whether the Service rendered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."2. Only contention raised by Mr. Bhattad, the learned Counsel for respondents, is that sub-clause 3 of sec 2(6) of the IGST Act is not complied with. Section 2(6) of the IGST Act defines the expression "export of services", one of the ingredients of which is" when the place of supply of service is outside India". We however find that the entire definition, has to be read as a whole and not in a piecemeal manner and will have to be read in the background of what the statute defines a 'recipient' to mean as indicated in section 2(6)(ii), as defined in Section 2(93) of the GST Act in conjunction with Sec. 13(2). All these provisions, in light of the definition of 'intermediary' as defined in Section 2(13) of the IGST Act has been considered by the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ernst & Young Ltd Vs. Add. Com. CGST/2023 (73) GSTL 161 (Del.), which also considers, the circular dtd 20.9.2021 bearing No. 159/15/21-GST issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. 3. We have perused the reasons and conclusion in Ernst & Young Ltd Vs. Add. Com. CGST and upon hearing the contention of Mr. Bhattad, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, do not s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 10815-10819/2014 (Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Vodafone India Ltd.) and connected matters, these special leave petitions also stand dismissed. We also bear in mind the dictum of this Court dated 04.11.2024 in SLP(C) No. 25992/2024 (Commissioner, Central Excise, CGST-Delhi South Commissionerate and Anr. Vs. Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd.). Pending application(s)shall also stand disposed of." 34. Thus, the Supreme Court reiterated its decisions in Commissioner of Service Tax v. Vodafone India Ltd. 2025 INSC 914 and SLP (C) No. 25992/2024 titled Commissioner, Central Excise, CGST-Delhi South Commissionerate &Anr. v. Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd. 35. A similar view was also taken by the CESTAT, Mumbai Bench in M/s Krishna Consultancy v. Commissioner of CGST, Nagpur Service Tax Appeal No. 85867/2016, wherein the CESTAT had observed as under: "Appellant is engaged in giving guidance to prospective students to seek admissions in universities located outside India. The appellant does not collect any consideration from prospective students. Appellant has entered into contracts with the universities abroad and arrangements are that when a stude....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es covered by these proceedings are export of services. We have also gone through the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sunrise Immigrations Consultants Pvt. Ltd. decided by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal. We note that this Tribunal has held that such organisations cannot be treated as intermediaries under the definition of Rule 2(f) of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. We, therefore, hold that the contention of Revenue that the appellant is an intermediary is not in accordance with law. We further note that the appellant has foregone the refund of Rs. 26,43,969/-. Therefore, now the refund claim works out to the tune of Rs. 24,30,172/-. We note that the appellant has not provided all the foreign inward remittance certificates covering the transactions involving service tax of Rs. 24,30,172/-. We, therefore, remand the matter to the original authority with a direction not to rake up any other issue but to collect foreign inward remittance certificates from the appellant in respect of those transactions which in volve refund of Rs. 24,30,172/- out of the refund claim of Rs. 50,73,141/- and allow the refund out of Rs. 24,30,172/- in respect of such transactions whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....party abroad is deriving benefit from service in India, it is an export of service.' 51. In the considered view of the Court, the judgment of the CESTAT in Paul Merchants Ltd v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra) is right in holding that "The service recipient is the person on whose instructions/orders the service is provided who is obliged to make the payment from the same and whose need is satisfied by the provision of the service." The Court further affirms the following passage in the said judgment in Paul Merchants Ltd v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra) which correctly explains the legal position: "It is the person who requested for the service is liable to make payment for the same and whose need is satisfied by the provision of service who has to be treated as recipient of the service, not the person or persons affected by the performance of the service. Thus, when the person on whose instructions the services in question had been provided by the agents/sub-agents in India, who Is liable to make payment for these services and who used the service for his business, is located abroad, the destination of the services in question has to be treated abroad. The destination has ....