TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2016-17 respectively, while in corresponding ST-3 Return the respondent had shown taxable value as zero/NIL. The respondent was requested to submit relevant documents and to clarify the mis-match of data reflected in ST-3 Return and ITR for the material period, but they did not reply on the subject. It was alleged by the Department that the respondent has deliberately not shown actual income for providing taxable service in ST-3 Returns with mala-fide intention to evade payment 24% service tax. Hence, the Department based on differential value of Rs.12,95,97,784/-, had determined the service tax including cesses of Rs.1,76,83,193/- on the part of the respondent and accordingly, a Show-cause notice dated 18.12.2020 was issued to the respondent proposing to demand and recover of Service Tax including cess of Rs.1,76,83,193/-, not paid by the respondent, along with appropriate interest under the provision of Section 73(1) & 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. Penalty was also proposed in terms of Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.1 The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand as proposed in the Show-cause notice dated 18.12.2020 and ordered to recover the same along with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of services and are "Intermediary Services" as per Rule 2(f) read with 9(c) of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. 3.4 On the other hand, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide its Orders-in-Appeal dated 15.01.2025, held that the respondents provided services in relation to educational institution located abroad and the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) by relying decisions of this Tribunal in case of Medway Educational Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Delhi West vide Final Order No.55451/2024 dt. 27.03.2024 and Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr., Service Tax, Delhi 2018 (8) GSTL 32 (Del) held that services rendered by the respondent, are export of service as per Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 3.5 Being aggrieved with the said order, the Revenue is before us. 4. The ld. A.R. for the Revenue, has reiterated findings of the ld. Adjudicating Authority. 5. The ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent undertook activities of finding the potential students willing to study abroad and guide them in respect of various options and opportunities available to them for studying abroad. Further, the respondents i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of tripartite agreement which is not in the instant case. 5.4 In support of his contention, he relies on the following decisions : (i) Medway Education Consultants Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi West vide Final Order No.55451/2024 dated 27.03.2024 ; (ii) Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi III : 2018 (8) GSTL 32 (Del.); (iii) Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCEx. : 2018-TIOL-1849-CESTAT-Chindigarh. 6. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 7. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Oceanic Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-I reported in 2024 (8) TMI 399, wherein this Tribunal has observed as under : "12. As far as the period post 01.07.2012 is concerned, the leamed Counsel for the appellants submits that leamed Commissioner erred in holding that the appellant is acting as an intermediary to connect its foreign principal to the end users of service who were the consumers in India. We find that during the relevant period, Interm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the remuneration from the universities on the fees paid by the students, the appellants get their remuneration. A doubt can arise as to whether the clarification issued by CBIC in the contacts of GST Act can be applicable to service tax. It is pertinent to note that the same circular clarifies categorically that there is no difference between the Service Tax regime and the GST regime as far as the treatment of "Intermediary Service is concerned. We find that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in the case of Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has enunciated the conditions that are required to be satisfied, primarily for a person to qualify as an "intermediary". * the relationship between the parties must be that of a principal-agency relationship. * the person must be involved in arrangement or facilitation of provisions of the service provided to the principal by a 3rd party. * the person must not actually perform the main service intended to be received by the service recipient itself. Scope of an "intermediary" is to mediate between two parties 1.e. the principal service provider (the 3rd party) and the beneficiary who receives the main service ....