𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗮𝗶 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 📢 The Tribunal held: "Commission received for procuring export orders, and additional quality control services rendered to a foreign client, is not classifiable as ‘intermediary’ services."

🔍 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀: 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆: M/s. SNQS International Socks Private Limited 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲: Whether the services provided by the appellant qualify as ‘intermediary’ under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012?

𝗔𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆: The appellant received commission from a foreign client for procuring export orders, monitoring quality, and performing additional services related to garments exported to the foreign buyer.

⚖️ 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: The Tribunal ruled that the appellant provided a range of services, including vendor selection and quality checks, for its foreign client on a principal-to-principal basis. These services were not limited to buying or selling, and the appellant did not meet the conditions to be classified as an ‘intermediary.’ The appeal was allowed.

𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗧𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲: M/s. SNQS International Socks Private Limited vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗧𝗮𝘅 𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗢𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗡𝗼. 40669 of 2019 𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗲: 23 November 2023 📜 This ruling clarifies that services beyond mere procurement of goods, rendered to a foreign client, do not qualify as intermediary services and are classified as export of services.