2025-VIL-1284-DEL-ST

SERVICE TAX High Court Cases

Service Tax – Export of Services or Intermediary Services - The Respondent-assessee is engaged in providing support services in India to foreign universities and institutions by arranging and facilitating student recruitment services - Whether the Respondent's services constitute "intermediary services" under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (POPS Rules) and the place of provision of service is in India, or whether the services constitute "export of services" under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the place of provision is outside India – HELD - The Respondent directly provides services to the foreign universities, with whom it has agreements, and does not merely arrange or facilitate the supply of services between two or more persons. The services rendered by the respondent constitute "export of services" under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as the place of provision of service is outside India, the recipient of the service is located outside India, and the payment is received in convertible foreign exchange - The High Court relied on the decisions in Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Add. Commr. CGST Appeals-II, Delhi, K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, and Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commr., S.T., Delhi-III, which held that a person who directly provides services is not an "intermediary" under the definition, and that the destination of services is determined by the location of the service recipient, not the service provider - The respondent's services do not qualify as "intermediary services" under Rule 2(f) of the POPS Rules. The CESTAT's order holding that the respondent's services constitute "export of services" is upheld - The Revenue appeal is dismissed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page