Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Kolkata South vs M/S. Global Reach Education Service ... on 9 January, 2026
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.1
Service Tax Appeal No.76043 of 2025
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.633/ST-KOL/ST/KOL-S/2024-25 dated 15.01.2025
passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata]
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata South
(180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata-700107)
Appellant
VERSUS
M/s Global Reach
(Ravi Lochan Singh, Unit 7W, The Millennium, 235/2A, A.J.C.Bose Road, Ballygunge,
Kolkata-700020)
Respondent
WITH Service Tax Appeal No.76044 of 2025 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.634/ST-KOL/ST/KOL-S/2024-25 dated 15.01.2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata] Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata South (180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata-700107) Appellant VERSUS M/s Global Reach Education Service Pvt. Ltd.
(235/2A, A.J.C.Bose Road, Kolkata-700020) Respondent APPERANCE :
Shri P.Das, Authorized Representative for the Appellant-Revenue Shri Sudhir Malhotra & Ms.Konika Malhotra,both Advocates for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR.K.ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO.75041-75042/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 16 DECEMBER 2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 JANUARY 2026 Per Ashok Jindal :
The Revenue is in appeals against the impugned orders.2
Serrvice Tax Appeal Nos.76043, 76044 of 2025 Service Tax Appeal No.76043 of 2025
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is registered with the Service Tax Department for providing taxable services under the Finance Act 1994. On verification of the records and documents, it was detected by the Department that the respondent had declared income from Service of Rs.5,36,83,397/-, Rs.6,78,46,587/- and Rs.80,67,800/- in Income Tax Return for the period 2014-15 (from Oct to March), 2015-16 and Financial Year 2016-17 respectively, while in corresponding ST-3 Return the respondent had shown taxable value as zero/NIL. The respondent was requested to submit relevant documents and to clarify the mis-match of data reflected in ST-3 Return and ITR for the material period, but they did not reply on the subject. It was alleged by the Department that the respondent has deliberately not shown actual income for providing taxable service in ST-3 Returns with mala-fide intention to evade payment 24% service tax. Hence, the Department based on differential value of Rs.12,95,97,784/-, had determined the service tax including cesses of Rs.1,76,83,193/- on the part of the respondent and accordingly, a Show-cause notice dated 18.12.2020 was issued to the respondent proposing to demand and recover of Service Tax including cess of Rs.1,76,83,193/-, not paid by the respondent, along with appropriate interest under the provision of Section 73(1) & 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. Penalty was also proposed in terms of Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.1 The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand as proposed in the Show-cause notice dated 18.12.2020 and ordered to recover the same along with appropriate interest under the Provisions vide Order- 3
Serrvice Tax Appeal Nos.76043, 76044 of 2025 in-Original dated 16.02.2023. Penalty was also imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(c). 77(2) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Service Tax Appeal No.76044 of 2025
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is registered with the Service Tax Department for providing taxable services under the Finance Act 1994. The Department conducted an investigation based on CBDT data and as a part of investigation, the respondent was asked to submit books of accounts as maintained by them along with ITR and Form 26AS for the period 2015-16 to 2017-18 (upto June, 2017). In response, the appellant had submitted the letters dated 07.10.2020 and 15.12.2020 informing that they had earned from foreign educational institutes/universities in finding suitable students to undertake courses with them, conducting admission tests & assisting in the process of admission to the universities and claimed that the services are exempted from levy of service tax. They have also submitted some documents as requested for and on examination of records viz Profit & Loss A/c, Income Tax Returns, Service Tax Returns, Sales Ledger, agreements and by the respondent, it was detected that the respondent had not paid service tax including cess of Rs.1,67,88,326/- for the period 2015-16 to 2017-18 (upto June, 2017). 3.1 Accordingly, a demand cum show cause notice dated 29.12.2020 was issued to the respondent proposing to recover Service tax including cesses of Rs.1,67,88,326/- along with appropriate interest under Section 73(1) & 75 the said Finance Act. Penalty was also proposed to 4 Serrvice Tax Appeal Nos.76043, 76044 of 2025 be imposed under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act,1994 and late fees in terms of Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
3.2 The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand as proposed in the Show-cause notice dated 29.12.2020 and ordered to recover the same along with applicable interest under the provisions vide Order-in- Original dated 26.10.2022. Penalty equivalent to the confirmed demand was also imposed under Section 78(1) of the said Finance Act, Penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed under Section 77 of the said Finance Act and order to recover late fee, if any payable, for late filing of the ST-3 Returns under Section 87 of the said Finance Act.
3.3 The ld.Adjudicating Authority held that the services rendered by the respondents are not export of services and are "Intermediary Services" as per Rule 2(f) read with 9(c) of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012.
3.4. On the other hand, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) vide its Orders-in-Appeal dated 15.01.2025, held that the respondents provided services in relation to educational institution located abroad and the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) by relying decisions of this Tribunal in case of Medway Educational Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Delhi West vide Final Order No.55451/2024 dt. 27.03.2024 and Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr., Service Tax, Delhi 2018 (8) GSTL 32 (Del) held that services rendered by the respondent, are export of service as per Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
3.5 Being aggrieved with the said order, the Revenue is before us. 5
Serrvice Tax Appeal Nos.76043, 76044 of 2025
4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue, has reiterated findings of the ld.Adjudicating Authority.
5. The ld.Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent undertook activities of finding the potential students willing to study abroad and guide them in respect of various options and opportunities available to them for studying abroad. Further, the respondents incurred number of expenses on conducting seminar, advertisement etc. etc. and none of the expenses were reimbursed by the universities/ colleges. The respondents provided services to their client ie. universities / colleges who paid commission to them. The main service is the education that starts after completion of services rendered by the respondents.
5.1 He further submits that as per Rule 2 (h) & 2 (i) of of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012, the location of service provider i.e. respondents is in India and location of service receiver is outside India being location of business establishment located outside India. The Rule 3 to 12 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 provide different category of place of provision. The respondents provided services relating to specific event i.e. of admission in educational institution/universities to recipient located outside India. The "intermediary services" are broader category and cannot be applied to specific category of place of provision, where services are used outside India and benefit of service also accrues outside India. For determining the relevant place of provision, the Rules are sequentially required to be looked into and specific provisions are to be preferred to general provisions.
6
Serrvice Tax Appeal Nos.76043, 76044 of 2025 5.2 He further submitted that the services rendered by the respondents were consumed outside India and received consideration thereto in convertible foreign currency from the persons located outside India. The respondents did not receive any amount from any student or any person in India for the impugned services.
5.3 Further, he submitted that the provisions of Rule 2 (f) and 9 (c) of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 have been incorrectly relied upon by ld.Reviewing Authority. The respondents did not provide any "intermediary service" as they have not charged any amount from students in India. The respondents provided services to recipient located outside India and received payment in convertible foreign exchange and are export of service as per ibid Rule 6A and CBEC Circular dt.24.02.2009. The concept of "intermediary services" has been clarified by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide circular No.159/15/2021 GST dt. 20.09.2021 in GST wherein it has been stated that the concept of "intermediary services" has been borrowed from service tax. The said circular states requirement of tripartite agreement which is not in the instant case. 5.4 In support of his contention, he relies on the following decisions :
(i) Medway Education Consultants Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi West vide Final Order No.55451/2024 dated 27.03.2024 ;
(ii) Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi III : 2018 (8) GSTL 32 (Del.);
(iii) Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCEx. : 2018-
TIOL-1849-CESTAT-Chindigarh.
7
Serrvice Tax Appeal Nos.76043, 76044 of 2025
6. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions.
7. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Oceanic Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-I reported in 2024 (8) TMI 399, wherein this Tribunal has observed as under :
"12. As far as the period post 01.07.2012 is concerned, the leamed Counsel for the appellants submits that leamed Commissioner erred in holding that the appellant is acting as an intermediary to connect its foreign principal to the end users of service who were the consumers in India. We find that during the relevant period, Intermediary Service has been defined by Rule 2(f) of Place of Provision of Service Rules. 2012 (introduced by the Notification No. 28/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012) as under. 2(f) "Intermediary" means a broker, an agent or any other person, by whatever name called, who arranges or facilitates a provision of service (hereinafter called the main service) or supply of goods between two or more persons but does not include a person who provides the main service for supplies the goods on his account.
13. In the facts of the case, we find that in any of the transactions, three parties are not involved, be it between the Australian universities and M/s OCA or be it M/s OCA and the Indian students. M/s OCA is rendering services to the Australian universities and the universities pay remuneration to M/s OCA:
M/s OCA has appointed the appellant to help the Indian students who intend to study in Australian universities. In the scheme of arrangements, it is not brought on record if there is any agreement or arrangement between the foreign universities and the appellant or M/s OCA and Indian students. Therefore, it appears that the primary requirement of existence of three parties in the scheme of things is absent in the instant case. The main service is rendered by M/s OCA to the foreign universities and the 8 Serrvice Tax Appeal Nos.76043, 76044 of 2025 appellant helps M/s OCA as far as the Indian students are concerned, neither the appellant nor M/s OCA charged any amount from the Indian students. Therefore, in the circumstances, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the appellants can at best be held to be the sub- contractor or the sub-agent of M/s OCA and not an intermediary between the India students and the universities or the Indian students and M/s OCA.
14. We find that Circular No.159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021 issued by CBIC envisages that in respect of Intermediary Services, there should be a minimum of three parties and two distinct supplies ie. main supply and ancillary supply, it also clarifies that a person involved in supply of main supply on principal-to-principal basis to another person cannot be considered as supplier of Intermediary Service. In the instant case, the appellants and M/s OCA are rendering the same service i.e. helping the students get admission in Australian universities and the appellants are rendering the same main service as M/s OCA, whereas Mis OCA get the remuneration from the universities on the fees paid by the students, the appellants get their remuneration. A doubt can arise as to whether the clarification issued by CBIC in the contacts of GST Act can be applicable to service tax. It is pertinent to note that the same circular clarifies categorically that there is no difference between the Service Tax regime and the GST regime as far as the treatment of "Intermediary Service is concerned. We find that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in the case of Genpact India Pvt. Ltd.
(supra), has enunciated the conditions that are required to be satisfied, primarily for a person to qualify as an "intermediary". * the relationship between the parties must be that of a principal-agency relationship.
the person must be involved in arrangement or facilitation of provisions of the service provided to the principal by a 3rd party.
9
Serrvice Tax Appeal Nos.76043, 76044 of 2025 the person must not actually perform the main service intended to be received by the service recipient itself. Scope of an "intermediary" is to mediate between two parties 1.e. the principal service provider (the 3rd party) and the beneficiary who receives the main service and expressly excludes any person who provides such main service "on his own account".
15. We find that Principal Bench of CESTAT has gone into a case involving similar facts and held in the Case of M/s IDP Education India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as follows:
"8. We have gone through the records of the case and considered the submissions on both sides. It is undisputed that the appellant has an agreement only with IDP Australia. The appellant recruits or facilitates students in India, but does not get any remuneration from Australian universities. For the students who are recruited or admitted by the university in Foreign Country, recommended by appellant in India, IDP Australia gets paid by the Australian/Foreign universities. A share of that commission is given to the appellant by IDP Australia. This scheme of arrangement clearly shows that the IDP Australia is providing services to the foreign universities and is consideration for the same. Insofar as recruitment of students in India is concerned, IDP Australia has created the appellant as a fully owned subsidiary, and has sub-contracted the work to the appellant. Nothing has been brought on record in the show cause notice or in the order to show that the appellant has a direct contract with the foreign universities. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant is liasioning or acting as intermediary between the foreign universities and IDP Australia. All that is evident from the records is that the appellant is providing the services which have been sub-contracted to it by M/s IDP Australia. As a sub- contractor, it is receiving commission from the main contractor for its services. The main contractor - IDP Australia, in turn, is receiving commission from the foreign universities who pay a 10 Serrvice Tax Appeal Nos.76043, 76044 of 2025 percentage of the tuition fee to IDP Australia. From the records, we find that Revenue has not established that the appellant is acting as an intermediary between M/s IDP Australia and the foreign universities, as alleged or held in the impugned order and the show cause notice. Hence, we find in favour of the appellant on merits.
16. As the facts of the instant case are identical to the above cited case, we find that the case law submitted by the Revenue is of no avail. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the services rendered by the appellants to M/s OCA during the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2015 do not fall under the category of "Intermediary Services and thus, the appellants are eligible for the benefit of export of services".
8. Admittedly, in this case also respondent undertook activities of finding the potential students willing to study abroad and guide them in respect of various options and opportunities available to them for studying abroad. Further, the respondent provided services to their client ie. universities / colleges who paid commission to them. The main service is the education that starts after completion of services rendered by the respondents.
9. The respondents also provided services relating to specific event i.e. of admission in educational institution/universities to recipient located outside India. For coming within the ambit of intermediary services, there should be a tripartite agreement. There is no such agreement among the parties. The respondent has providing services to their clients, i.e. Universities and Colleges located outside India.
10. In that circumstances, relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Oceanic Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the respondents are 11 Serrvice Tax Appeal Nos.76043, 76044 of 2025 not liable to pay the service tax. Therefore, we do not find an infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same are upheld and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
(Pronounced in the open court on 09.01.2026)
(Ashok Jindal)
Member (Judicial)
(K.Anpazhakan)
mm Member (Technical)