Sannam S-4 Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that consultancy services rendered by the appellant to the foreign university/foreign group entity do not fall under the category of “intermediary services” and the appellants are eligible for the benefit of „export of services”. Accordingly, appeal allowed and demand set aside.
Facts- The appellant is engaged in providing range of consultancy services including exploring development opportunities in Indian market to international educational organizations. The appellant was classifying its activities as export of services in its ST-3 Returns and was, therefore, not paying any service tax.
Pursuant to an investigation, show cause notice dated 19.07.2022 was issued for the period October 2016 – June 2017, on the allegation that appellant is acting in representative capacity for its customers, i.e., the foreign universities, while dealing with the students and was, therefore acting as an agent or broker. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed, holding that the appellant is operating as an „intermediary‟ in terms of Rule 2(f) of POPS Rules and since the location of the appellant is in India, the provision of service is in the taxable territory, which will be taxable in the hands of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal.
