Since the nature of activities or services undertaken by the appellant are as a facilitator, and hence, the Appellant is to be considered as an intermediary in terms of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. The services of the Appellant are not ‘Export of Services’ under the GST
Section 16 of the IGST Act — Letter of Undertaking — The appellant filed appeal against the Order 7-11-2017. The appellant in terms of Section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act, applied with a LUT for Export of services without payment of IGST in the prescribed form RFD-11. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the LUT application holding that the Appellant is engaged in providing marketing services to different universities, and the service provided by the appellant to the foreign Universities are classifiable as Intermediary services. The appellants filed the appeal against the impugned order on the grounds that the impugned order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as opportunity for personal hearing was not accorded, Service provided by the appellant to OCA qualify as export of services, Appellant is not an Intermediary. The authority observed that the appellant is rendering services on behalf of the OCA and not as an independent Service provider. Therefore since the nature of activities or services undertaken by the appellant are as a facilitator, and hence, the Appellant is to be considered as an intermediary in terms of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. The Appellate authority concurred with the decision of the Adjudicating authority that the services of the Appellant are not ‘Export of Services’ under the GST Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal of the Appellant.
Since the nature of activities or services undertaken by the appellant are as a facilitator, and hence, the Appellant is to be considered as an intermediary in terms of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. The services of the Appellant are not ‘Export of Services’ under the GST
Section 16 of the IGST Act — Letter of Undertaking — The appellant filed appeal against the Order 7-11-2017. The appellant in terms of Section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act, applied with a LUT for Export of services without payment of IGST in the prescribed form RFD-11. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the LUT application holding that the Appellant is engaged in providing marketing services to different universities, and the service provided by the appellant to the foreign Universities are classifiable as Intermediary services. The appellants filed the appeal against the impugned order on the grounds that the impugned order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as opportunity for personal hearing was not accorded, Service provided by the appellant to OCA qualify as export of services, Appellant is not an Intermediary. The authority observed that the appellant is rendering services on behalf of the OCA and not as an independent Service provider. Therefore since the nature of activities or services undertaken by the appellant are as a facilitator, and hence, the Appellant is to be considered as an intermediary in terms of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. The Appellate authority concurred with the decision of the Adjudicating authority that the services of the Appellant are not ‘Export of Services’ under the GST Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal of the Appellant.