AAR | No GST Exemption for Third-Party Platform Marketing Yoga Courses

Case Details: Geton Yoga (P.) Ltd., In re - [2025] 176 taxmann.com 852 (AAR - KERALA) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Jomy Jacob IRS and Mansur M.I. , Member
• Rajeevnath Viswanathan and Sushil Kumar Menon, Company Founder for the Applicant.

Fact of the Case

The applicant, a third-party digital platform, operated an online portal for marketing and promoting Yoga courses conducted by various Yoga institutions. Students registered for the courses through the applicant’s platform by remitting a consolidated amount comprising the Yoga course fee (as fixed by the respective institutions), the platform service charges, and applicable GST. Certain Yoga institutions offering these courses were eligible for GST exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017. The applicant sought a ruling on whether the Yoga course fee component collected on behalf of such exempt institutions could be excluded from its taxable value on the ground that it acted merely as a conduit or pure agent. The applicant contended that it did not render the core educational service and that the exemption granted to the institutions should not be denied merely due to the use of a digital intermediary. The matter was accordingly placed before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Kerala.

AAR Held

The AAR, Kerala held that the exemption granted under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017 to Yoga institutions does not automatically extend to third-party service providers such as digital platforms facilitating course registration. It observed that unless the applicant satisfies the conditions prescribed under Rule 33 of the CGST Rules and Kerala GST Rules, particularly with respect to acting as a pure agent, the Yoga course fee component cannot be excluded from the taxable value. The AAR further held that in the present case, there was no sufficient contractual framework or documentary evidence to establish that the applicant was acting solely in the capacity of a pure agent. Consequently, GST was held applicable on the entire consideration received, including the Yoga course fee. However, the AAR clarified that if in any future arrangement the applicant is able to demonstrably fulfil all the requirements of Rule 33, then the Yoga course fee component may be excluded from the taxable value, and GST will be limited to the service fee charged by the platform.

List Of Cases Referred To

• Medpiper Technologies Pvt. Ltd., In re [KAR ADRG 35 of 2023, dated 27-7-2023] (para 7.5) and Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats (p.) Ltd. [2018] 91 taxmann.com 67/66 GST 450/10 GSTL 401 (SC) (para 7.7).