Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1417 - AT - Service TaxDemand of service tax - referral services provided to foreign universities/colleges and banks - period post 01.07.2012 - Place of Provision Rules - export of services - case of appellant is that the appellant is not intermediary, therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax post 01.07.2012 - extended period of limitation. Whether the appellant is intermediary in terms of Rule 2(f) of POPS Rules, 2012 or not? - Held that: - As the appellant did not arrange or facilitate main service i.e. education or loan rendered by colleges/banks. In that circumstances, the appellant cannot be called as intermediary in the light of the judgment issued by the Advanced Ruling Authority in the case of Godaddy India Web Services Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (3) TMI 355 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS], where it was held that The definition of “intermediary” as envisaged under Rule 2(f) of POS does not include a person who provides the main service on his own account - the provisions of Rule 6A of the POPS Rules, 2012 has been declared ultra virus - appellant is not liable to pay tax for referral service - decided in favor of appellant. Whether the referral services in question rendered by the appellant amount to export of service or not? - Held that: - the appellant is not an intermediary and the appellant is providing Business Auxiliary Service to their clients, who are located outside India, therefore, the services rendered by the appellant duly qualified as export of service in terms of Rule 3 of POPS Rules, 2012 - decided in favor of appellant. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - as the issue relates to the interpretation of the POPS Rules, 2012, therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Appeal disposed off.
|