TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....admission of Indian students into various foreign universities/ colleges / institutions and were receiving commission for the same from the foreign universities/ colleges and other educational institutions situated in India. On conduct of an inquiry, it appeared to the Revenue that the respondent acted as an intermediary between the students and foreign universities/ colleges/ institutions as defined under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provisions of Services Rules (POPS Rules) 2012; accordingly, a show cause notice, dated 23.04.2018, covering the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2017 and a statement of case, dated 01.02.2020, covering the period April 2017 to June 2017, were issued to the appellants; the proposals in the SCN were confirmed with equal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of Indian Association of Tour Operators, relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd, has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court - 2018 (17) GSTL J1 16 (SC); the decision of CESTAT was accepted by the Department only on monetary terms; therefore, learned Commissioner ignored the fact that the decision of CESTAT had no precedenciary value. 4. Ms. Sonia, learned consultant for the respondents, submits that the findings and the grounds of appeal by the Department are self-contradictory and not based on legal foundation. It is on fact that the fee is paid directly by the students and no part of it flows through the respondent; no invoices issued by the respondent to the students;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Apex Court. This Bench in the case of Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vide Final Order No. A/62221/2018-CU (DB) dated 16.03.2018 has decided the issue in the favour of the appellants therein. Revenue has accepted this order. Revenue cannot take the plea that the same was accepted on monetary grounds; the plea that the case of Sunrise Immigration (Supra) has no precedential value, is incorrect. She submits that this plea, however, unfounded is not relevant as the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in other cases. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the respondent has acted as an agent for the foreign universities and has received a commission for the same. As there is no triparti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to M/s OCA; M/s OCA has appointed the appellant to help the Indian students who intend to study in Australian universities. In the scheme of arrangements, it is not brought on record if there is any agreement or arrangement between the foreign universities and the appellant or M/s OCA and Indian students. Therefore, it appears that the primary requirement of existence of three parties in the scheme of things is absent in the 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 app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 i.e. the principal service provider (the 3rd party) and the beneficiary who receives the main service and expressly excludes any person who provides such main service "on his own account". 15. We find that Principal Bench of CESTAT has gone into a case involving similar facts and held in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 in the impugned order and the show cause notice. Hence, we find in favour of the appellant on merits. 16. As the facts of the instant case are identical to the above cited case, we find that the case law submitted by the Revenue is of no avail. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the services rendered by the appellants to M/s OCA during the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2015 do not....