Stay updated
The concept of “intermediary” in Indian indirect tax law was first introduced under Rule 9(c) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012, under the erstwhile Service Tax regime.
Putting to rest the long-running confusion around ‘intermediary’ services under Goods and Service Tax (GST) law..
Intermediary services have long been a subject of discussion and debate, particularly regarding why their place of supply is determined by the location of the supplier and whether services provided to a recipient outside India qualify as exports or fall under intermediary services.
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of IDP Education India Pvt. Ltd. held that services rendered by the Petitioner to IDP Australia under a bi-partite agreement, without any contractual relationship with students, do not qualify as intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. Consequently, these services qualify as “export of services” and the Petitioner is entitled to IGST refund.
The upcoming 56th Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council meeting may approve a proposal reclassifying intermediaries — including brokers, agents, and digital platforms — as exporters, granting their services a zero-rated status, said a senior government official.
Applicant’s services of referral to Foreign Universities qualify as an “export of service”
Hon’ble CESTAT’s significant clarity; Marketing Support is Business Support, Not Intermediary Hon’ble Chennai CESTAT recent ruling offers crucial support for…
The Telangana, AAR in the matter of M/s. Center for International Admission and Visas (CIAV), held that services of ‘Marketing/Recruitment/Referral Consultant’ by the Assessee to foreign universities on principal to principal basis do not qualify as ‘intermediary’ as defined under Section 2 (13) of the IGST Act. Further, the activity of forwarding applications of the aspiring students by the Assessee to foreign universities qualifies as ‘export of service’ in terms of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act provided the payments are received in convertible foreign exchange.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise v. SNQS International Socks Private Limited [Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 8343/2024 dated March 19, 2024] dismissed the Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise (“the Appellant”) appeal.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that even when aassessee is referred to as an agent in the agreement, doesn’t concretely mean that he is an intermediary and not a principal service provider. As a result, the denial of the refund was overturned, and the tax authorities were instructed to process the refund claim expeditiously.