2025 (12) TMI 1534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e that the petitioner is a subsidiary of IDP Education Limited which is an Australian publicly listed Company (for short, 'IDP Australia'). The petitioner had entered into an agreement dated 01.07.2017 with IDP Australia to assist students from India to secure admission in Universities in Australia. In lieu of providing of such services, IDP Australia transfers to the petitioner, a percentage of the "student placement service fee" collected by IDP Australia. The relationship between the petitioner and IDP Australia was and is on a principal-to-principal basis as the petitioner only provides assistance to the students from India to seek admission in Universities in Australia through IDP Australia and that the final decision with regard to ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... services, foreign universities pay IDP Australia certain percentage of fees charged to the students as student placement services fee. 7. In order to meet its obligation towards the foreign universities, IDP Australia has in turn entered into Support Services Agreement dated 1st July 2017 with the Petitioner. The Petitioner under the said agreement is obliged to provide support services to IDP Australia with respect to Indian students intending to opt for courses offered by the foreign universities. For this purpose, IDP Australia shares certain percentage of fee received by it from the foreign universities with the Petitioner. The Petitioner does not have any contractual obligation with the universities or with the students and d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t based on the findings given in the impugned order, the Petitioner squarely falls within the term "intermediary" and therefore, the refund claimed by them has been rightly rejected. 11. We have perused the records and find that in identical facts and circumstances in the Petitioner's own case, the CESTAT vide its Order dated 28th October 2021 has given a categorical finding that the Petitioner is not an intermediary. While an attempt has been made to differentiate the CESTAT Order on the basis that the agreement examined by CESTAT was a different agreement, we find that it is only due to periodical renewal of the agreement the reference of the agreement differs, whereas, the scope of the services remained the same. Since the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t 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. We agree with petitioner's case that the impugned order has incorrectly concluded that petitioner has facilitated and arranged placement services between the Foreign Universities, IDP Australia and the students. P....