Facts of the Case

  1. The Commissioner of Central Tax (Appellant) challenged the CESTAT order dated 13.12.2024 holding that the Respondent (M/s TC Global India Pvt Ltd) was not an “intermediary” under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (POPS Rules) and that its services constituted export of services not liable to service tax.
  2. The Respondent provided support services in India to foreign universities and earned commission in convertible foreign exchange by facilitating international student recruitment.
  3. A SCN was issued for service tax demand alleging intermediary service taxability and time‑barred notice under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Service Tax era) was maintainable.
  2. Whether the services rendered by the Respondent were ‘intermediary services’ under Rule 2(f) of POPS Rules or were exempt as ‘export of services’ under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
  3. Whether the SCN was time‑barred under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Respondent’s activities constituted intermediary services under POPS Rules, attracting service tax.
 The place of provision of services was India under Rule 9(c); hence, taxation was valid.
 The SCN was valid and not barred by limitation. 

Respondent’s Arguments

The services were export of services under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, as:
• Recipient was outside India,
• Payment received in foreign exchange, and
• Place of provision was outside India.
 Respondent did not arrange or facilitate services for Indian recipients; services were directly for foreign universities.
 Thus, no intermediary tax liability arose. 

Court’s Order & Key Findings

  1. The High Court upheld the CESTAT order that Respondent was not an intermediary as defined under POPS Rules.
  2. The Court distinguished the present case from earlier Adjudicating Authority findings, noting that the contractual recipient of services was abroad and not Indian students.
  3. The services qualified as export of services under Rule 6A(1) of the Service Tax Rules since all statutory conditions were satisfied.
  4. Reliance was placed on established principles, including that the contract’s service recipient determines the place of provision, not the place of performance or effect.
  5. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Respondent, and the SCN’s service tax demand was negated. 

Important Clarifications

Intermediary vs Export of Services: An entity that merely facilitates services but where the beneficial recipient and payor are abroad may fall outside taxable intermediary classification if the place of provision is treated as outside India.
Place of Provision Rules: Service recipient under contract defines the ultimate destination of service, not the intermediary’s physical location.
 Limitation under Service Tax: Effective application of Section 73 of the Finance Act is critical to determine SCN timeframe.


Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS24112025SERTA202025_165913.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.