Facts of the Case

The respondent, Global Opportunities Private Limited, is engaged in providing educational consultancy services to Indian students intending to pursue higher education abroad. The respondent entered into agreements with foreign educational institutions under which it provided counselling and consultancy services to prospective students. Upon successful admission of students, the foreign universities paid commission to the respondent in terms of the agreements.

The respondent filed multiple refund applications claiming refund of GST paid on export of services for the periods covering Financial Years 2018–19 to 2021–22. The refund claims were rejected by the Proper Officer on the ground that the respondent was an “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act and therefore the services did not qualify as export of services. The Appellate Authority, by orders dated 02.08.2024 (Forms GST APL-04 dated 10.08.2024 and 04.10.2024), allowed the appeals and directed grant of refund.

Aggrieved by the appellate orders granting refund, the Department filed the present writ petition challenging the same.

Issues Involved

Whether the services provided by the respondent to foreign universities qualified as export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, whether the respondent could be treated as an “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act read with Section 13(8), and whether the appellate authority was justified in allowing GST refund on such services.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Department contended that the respondent acted as an agent of foreign universities and therefore fell within the definition of “intermediary”. It was argued that since the respondent merely facilitated admissions of students to foreign universities and earned commission, the services were intermediary services, the place of supply would be deemed to be in India under Section 13(8) of the IGST Act, and the services would not qualify as export of services. Reliance was also placed on clauses in the agreements describing the respondent as an “agent” and on CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent submitted that it was providing consultancy and marketing services to foreign universities on a principal-to-principal basis and was not acting as an agent or intermediary. It was argued that the respondent did not arrange or facilitate supply of services between two parties but itself supplied services to foreign universities, which paid consideration in foreign exchange. Reliance was placed on decisions of the Delhi High Court in Ernst & Young Ltd., Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd., and on judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in similar educational consultancy cases, including K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court examined the statutory definitions of “export of services” under Section 2(6) and “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, as well as the place of supply provisions under Section 13. The Court reiterated that an intermediary merely arranges or facilitates supply between two parties and does not supply services on its own account.

Relying on its earlier judgments in Ernst & Young Ltd. and Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd., and on the Bombay High Court decision in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Court held that the respondent was supplying services on its own account to foreign universities and was not acting as an intermediary. The Court observed that the recipient of services was the foreign university which paid consideration, and the mere fact that Indian students benefitted from such services did not alter the identity of the service recipient.

The Court further noted that recent recommendations of the GST Council to omit Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act reflected legislative intent to remove confusion regarding intermediary services and export benefits. In view of settled judicial precedent, the Court found no infirmity in the appellate orders granting refund.

Important Clarification

The High Court clarified that educational consultancy services rendered to foreign universities on a principal-to-principal basis, where consideration is received in foreign exchange, constitute export of services. Such service providers cannot be treated as intermediaries merely because students in India benefit from the services.

Final Outcome

The writ petition filed by the Department was dismissed. The appellate orders dated 10.08.2024 and 04.10.2024 granting GST refund to the respondent were upheld. The Department was directed to process and grant the refund along with applicable statutory interest in accordance with law within two months. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Source Link- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS25092025CW101892025_185703.pdf


Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.