Commissioner of Central Tax Vs T C Global India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that provision of support service in India to foreign universities and institutions qualifies as export of services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the same is not ‘intermediary’ in terms of rule 2(f) of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012.
Facts- The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, inter alia, assailing the impugned order dated 13th December, 2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
Vide the impugned order, the appeal of the Respondent-taxpayer has been allowed by CESTAT, and it has been held that the Respondent is not an ‘intermediary’ in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 and the services rendered by the Respondent constitute export of services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
Conclusion- CESTAT, Mumbai Bench in M/s Krishna Consultancy v. Commissioner of CGST, Nagpur has held that the appellant is providing guidance to Indian students with out charging any consideration from them. In view of the definition of service, we hold that the appellant is not providing any service to prospective students in India. We hold that the appellant is providing service to universities located in foreign countries who are paying consideration to the appellant. We, therefore, hold that the services covered by these proceedings are export of services. We note that this Tribunal has held that such organisations cannot be treated as intermediaries under the definition of Rule 2(f) of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 We, therefore, hold that the contention of Revenue that the appellant is an intermediary is not in accordance with law.
