| Education consultancy services to foreign universities not intermediary; IGST refund admissible: HC |
| Fateh Education Consulting (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner [2026] 186 taxmann.com 394 (Delhi) |
| The petitioner was engaged in education consultancy providing marketing and recruitment support services to foreign universities and received consideration directly from them under contractual arrangements. It filed refund claims of IGST treating the services as export of services, supported by agreements, invoices, and e-BRCs/FIRCs. A show cause notice (SCN) was issued seeking clarification that the services did not constitute intermediary services. After the submission of the reply and the personal hearing, the refund was rejected by the jurisdictional officer under CGST on the ground that the petitioner acted as an agent for universities by promoting courses, identifying students, assisting with admissions, and receiving commissions linked to tuition fees. The petitioner challenged the rejection by filing a writ petition. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court. |
| The High Court held that the classification of services as intermediary must be determined strictly on the basis of contractual privity, nature of supply, and recipient of consideration under Section 2(13), read with Sections 13 and 16 of IGST Act. It observed that where services are rendered on own account directly to foreign universities and consideration is received from them, the mere incidental assistance to students does not alter the character of the supply into intermediary services. It further noted that absence of authority to bind universities, absence of any fee collection from students, and existence of direct contractual relationship with universities are determinative factors negating intermediary status. Accordingly, it held that the impugned order rejecting refund was unsustainable and directed that IGST refund be processed along with applicable statutory interest. |
| |
|
