Education Consultancy Services To Foreign Universities Not 'Intermediary Services' Under GST: Delhi High Court

A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited, which had challenged an order rejecting its refund claim of ₹2.63 crore.

The petitioner-company stated that it provides education consultancy, marketing and recruitment support services to foreign universities and had sought refund of Integrated GST paid for the period September 2023 to March 2024 under the category of “Export of Services — with Payment of Tax.”

The GST department had rejected the refund claim on the ground that the company was promoting courses of foreign universities, identifying prospective students and assisting in recruitment, while earning commission linked to tuition fees paid by students.

On that basis, the authorities treated the company as an “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that the services did not qualify as export of services.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that it rendered services directly to foreign universities under contractual arrangements and received consideration only from those universities, not from Indian students.

It further contended that it had no authority to bind the foreign universities and could not guarantee admissions, thereby negating any principal-agent relationship.

The Court noted that the issue was settled in Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax DGST Delhi v. Global Opportunities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative where a coordinate bench held that educational consultancy and recruitment support services rendered by an Indian entity to foreign universities, for consideration paid by those universities, qualify as export of services and not intermediary services.

In this case also, the Court observed, the factual matrix is materially similar to that in Global Opportunities Private Limited inasmuch as the petitioner does not charge students for such services, has no authority to bind the foreign university, cannot guarantee admission, and receives consideration from the foreign university.

“The determinative factor is not the place where the incidental beneficiary may be located, but the contractual recipient of the service, the person liable to pay consideration, and the nature of the service supplied,” the court explained.

As such, the Court directed the authorities to process and grant the refund to the Petitioner.

For Petitioner: Advocates Kamal Sawhney, Deepak Thackur and Rishabh Mishra.

For Respondent: Senior Standing Counsel Anushree Narain, with Advocates Naman Choula and Yamit Jetley..