Facts of the Case:
In this case, the petitioner was engaged in providing education consultancy, marketing and student recruitment support services to various foreign universities. The petitioner filed a refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act for the period September 2023 to March 2024 on the ground of “export of services with payment of tax” in respect of Integrated GST paid on such services.
In support of the refund claim, the petitioner furnished service agreements executed with foreign universities, export invoices, Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs)/e-BRCs, reconciliation statements and other supporting documents evidencing receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange.
The Department issued a show cause notice alleging that the petitioner was engaged in promoting courses of foreign universities, identifying prospective students, counselling and assisting them in the admission process, and earning commission linked to tuition fees paid by students. On this basis, the Department proposed to classify the petitioner as an “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act and consequently deny refund on the ground that the services did not qualify as export of services.
The petitioner relied heavily upon the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Global Opportunities Private Limited and the Bombay High Court decision in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., wherein similar educational consultancy services rendered to foreign universities had been held to constitute export of services and not intermediary services.
Issue: Whether education consultancy, marketing and recruitment support services rendered by an Indian entity to foreign universities, for consideration received in foreign exchange, could be classified as “intermediary services” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, thereby disentitling the assessee from claiming refund as export of services?
Held That:
The Court observed that the petitioner was rendering education consultancy, marketing and recruitment support services directly to foreign universities under contractual arrangements. The petitioner raised invoices upon the foreign universities and received consideration from them in foreign exchange. Merely because Indian students were incidentally counselled or assisted during the admission process would not convert the petitioner into an intermediary.
The Court emphasized that the determinative test for intermediary services is whether the service provider is facilitating a supply between two other persons or supplying services on its own account. In the present case, the petitioner was supplying services on a principal-to-principal basis to foreign universities and was not arranging or facilitating supplies between students and universities.
The Court further noted that the agreements specifically clarified that the petitioner had no authority to bind the foreign universities, could not guarantee admissions, and that no principal-agent relationship was created. The fact that the petitioner received commission from foreign universities did not alter the true nature of the transaction.
The Delhi High Court held that the controversy was no longer res integra in view of the earlier judgment in Global Opportunities Private Limited and the Bombay High Court ruling in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., which had already settled the legal position in favour of assessees engaged in similar activities.
Case Name: FATEH EDUCATION CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & ORS. dated 08.05.2026
To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 1231
