Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs Trivedi Overseas Education Services (CESTAT Chandigarh)
Summary: CESTAT Chandigarh dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against M/s Trivedi Overseas Education Services and upheld the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a service tax dispute concerning commission received for facilitating admission of Indian students to foreign universities and institutions. The Tribunal held that although the respondent acted as an agent for foreign universities and received commission, it could not be treated as an “intermediary” merely because it was labelled an agent.
The essential structure of intermediary services—more than two parties and more than one service—was absent. Referring to Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 and Circular No.159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021, the Tribunal noted that intermediary service requires a minimum of three parties and two distinct supplies, while a person supplying the main service on a principal-to-principal basis is outside the concept. It relied upon Oceanic Consultants Ltd. and the principles stated in Genpact India Pvt. Ltd., and also reproduced the reasoning concerning IDP Education India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal further rejected Revenue’s attempt to deny precedential value to Sunrise Immigration Consultants after Revenue itself had not appealed that decision, holding such an approach contrary to judicial discipline.
