The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax payable on providing visa consultancy services.
The bench of S. S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that providing Visa Consultancy Services to its clients who wish to settle down in the foreign countries is “Export of Services” and not “Intermediary Services”.
The appellant/assessee are registered with the Service Tax department and are engaged in providing Visa Consultancy Services to its clients who wishes to settle down in the foreign countries. Inquiries were initiated against the Appellant by the department with respect to the various services rendered by the Appellant.
On the basis of the information gathered, it was alleged by the department that the Appellant are rendering the services which are exigible to service tax and the Appellant are not paying the service tax.
Read More: Bombay High Court Quashes ADG-DGGI Unreasoned Attachment Order
The Appellant was issued two show cause notices for the different periods as stated in the above table. The Appellant filed a detailed reply to both the show cause notices and explained their stand. After following the due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands proposed in both the show cause notices along with interest under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed penalties.
The Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the service tax demands and penalty.
The assessee contended that the referral service of the Appellant provided to Canadian Bank and foreign universities does not amount to ‘Intermediary Service’ as alleged by the department. The service provided by the Appellant does not fall under the definition of ‘Intermediaries’ as envisaged under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 because the said definition does not include a person who provides the main service on his own account. The services provided by the Appellant to the foreign universities qualify as ‘Export of Services’ and cannot be treated as ‘Intermediary service’ under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012.
The department contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly confirmed the demand under ‘Intermediary Service’ as defined under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The services provided by the Appellant do not fall under the definition of ‘Export of Services’.
The issue raised was whether the services provided by the Appellant fall under the ambit of ‘Export of Services’ and are exempted from service tax; or are classifiable under ‘Intermediary Service’ as defined under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 read with Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012.
The term ‘Intermediary Service’ is defined under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. ‘Intermediary’ means a broker, an agent or any other person, by whatever name called, who arranges or facilitates a provision of a service or a supply of goods, between two or more persons, but does not include a person who provides the main service or supplies the goods on his account.
The tribunal while allowing the appeal held that the services rendered by the Appellant satisfy the conditions prescribed for the ‘Export of Services’ and therefore, the Appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the services rendered by them.
Case Title: Sunrise Immigration Consultants Private Limited v/s Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods & Service Tax, Chandigarh
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 60241 of 2022
Date: 06.09.2024
Counsel For Appellant: Sh. Atul Kumar Gupta, C.A. with Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Sh. Aneesh Dewan with Sh. Shivam Syal, Authorized Representatives
