When the place of supply is in India, it does not satisfy one of the conditions for export of service, that the place of supply should be outside India. The intermediary services provided by the Appellant to Airbus France, do not qualify as export of service.
Classification of service— In the instant case, the appellant has approached this authority for determination of issue as to whether the services rendered by the appellant to Airbus SAS France would be construed as those of an intermediary as defined under Section 2(13) of the CGST Act, 2017, or otherwise.
In the instant case, the Appellant is arranging for and facilitating the Principal in procuring a supply of goods from India. He is not undertaking any supply of goods. He is only arranging the contact between the Principal and the Indian supplier and the actual supply of the goods is done by the Indian supplier directly to the Airbus France. The service of facilitating the main supply of goods between the Indian supplier and the Principal is provided by the Appellant to Airbus France. The Appellant is not supplying such goods on his own account and hence, the Appellant does not fall within the ambit of the exclusion contained in the definition of ‘intermediary’.
The Appellant is clearly playing the role of intermediary for Airbus France, as envisaged under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 and we uphold the findings of the lower Authority in this regard.
Held that— When the place of supply is in India, it does not satisfy one of the conditions for export of service, that the place of supply should be outside India. Therefore, we hold that the intermediary services provided by the Appellant to Airbus France, do not qualify as export of service.
When the place of supply is in India, it does not satisfy one of the conditions for export of service, that the place of supply should be outside India. The intermediary services provided by the Appellant to Airbus France, do not qualify as export of service.
Classification of service— In the instant case, the appellant has approached this authority for determination of issue as to whether the services rendered by the appellant to Airbus SAS France would be construed as those of an intermediary as defined under Section 2(13) of the CGST Act, 2017, or otherwise.
In the instant case, the Appellant is arranging for and facilitating the Principal in procuring a supply of goods from India. He is not undertaking any supply of goods. He is only arranging the contact between the Principal and the Indian supplier and the actual supply of the goods is done by the Indian supplier directly to the Airbus France. The service of facilitating the main supply of goods between the Indian supplier and the Principal is provided by the Appellant to Airbus France. The Appellant is not supplying such goods on his own account and hence, the Appellant does not fall within the ambit of the exclusion contained in the definition of ‘intermediary’.
The Appellant is clearly playing the role of intermediary for Airbus France, as envisaged under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 and we uphold the findings of the lower Authority in this regard.
Held that— When the place of supply is in India, it does not satisfy one of the conditions for export of service, that the place of supply should be outside India. Therefore, we hold that the intermediary services provided by the Appellant to Airbus France, do not qualify as export of service.