Facts of the Case:

Navitas Eduservices Private Limited, formerly known as Learning Information Systems (India) Private Limited, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Navitas Pty Ltd., Australia. Under a Master Services Agreement dated 7 December 2016, the Indian entity provided marketing, promotion, business support and IT-enabled services to its overseas group entity for consideration calculated on a cost-plus basis, with a 16% markup and payment in Australian dollars or convertible foreign exchange. Its activities included supporting recruitment advisors, promoting universities, assisting with admissions, web development, marketing automation, social media campaigns and maintaining the Study Link portal.

The Indian entity contended that it provided the contracted services to the overseas recipient on its own account as an independent contractor. It was not authorised to bind Navitas Australia, was not a party to the agreements entered into between Navitas Australia and recruitment advisors or partner universities, and did not independently invoice those universities or advisors. Navitas Australia maintained separate contractual relationships with those parties.

The taxpayer filed refund applications under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, seeking refunds of unutilised input tax credit (ITC) relating to alleged exports of services for different periods between January 2018 and March 2023. The refund claims were rejected on the ground that the services constituted intermediary services, rather than exports of services. The taxpayer filed five appeals before the GST Appellate Tribunal against the refund rejections, while the Department filed a separate appeal concerning an order of the First Appellate Authority that had annulled the original order and directed reconsideration of the matter.

Issue:

Whether the marketing, promotion, business support and IT-enabled services supplied by Navitas Eduservices to Navitas Australia were exports of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017, or whether the Indian entity acted as an intermediary within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. Also, whether the taxpayer was entitled to refunds of unutilised ITC, together with applicable interest, and whether the First Appellate Authority could annul an adjudication order and remit the matter to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration in view of the restriction under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Held That:

The GST Appellate Tribunal held that Navitas Eduservices supplied the contracted services to Navitas Australia on its own account and on a principal-to-principal basis, as an independent service provider. The fact that the services supported the overseas entity’s business activities, including its relationships with universities and recruitment advisors, did not by itself make the Indian entity an intermediary. The Tribunal emphasised that intermediary services ordinarily involve at least three parties and two distinct supplies: a principal supply between two parties and a separate service of arranging or facilitating that supply by the intermediary. In the present case, the Indian entity’s contractual obligations were directed towards providing services to its overseas recipient, rather than arranging or facilitating a supply between Navitas Australia and third parties.

The Tribunal took into account the scope of services under the Master Services Agreement, the cost-plus remuneration model, the absence of authority to bind the overseas entity, and the fact that Navitas Australia independently contracted with universities and recruitment advisors. It further held that a discrepancy in the corporate name appearing in the agreement and invoices was not, by itself, determinative of the nature of the supply. Relying on judicial precedents including Genpact India, Blackberry India, Columbia Sportswear India Sourcing and Dow Chemical International, along with CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST, the Tribunal preferred the applicable High Court rulings over contrary advance ruling decisions.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the services did not qualify as intermediary services and allowed the taxpayer’s five appeals, granting the claimed refunds of unutilised ITC aggregating to ₹1,41,09,366, together with interest at the applicable rates of 6% and 9%, as specified in the order, from the respective dates identified for the individual appeals.

On the Department’s appeal, the Tribunal examined Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, which restricts the First Appellate Authority from referring a case back to the original adjudicating authority. It held that the statutory prohibition cannot be circumvented merely by describing the original order as annulled while directing the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter. The Tribunal distinguished this restriction from its own remand powers under Section 113(1) of the CGST Act. 

Case Name: M/s NAVITAS EDUSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF CGST, SOUTH DELHI dated 14.10.2026