The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors said that education consultancy/marketing and recruitment support services provided by an Indian entity to foreign universities shall be entitled as ‘export of services’ rather than ‘intermediary services’ u/s 2(13) of the IGST Act, where the taxpayer provided services itself, received consideration from freign universities, does not hold any power to bind these universities and only incidentally supported students in the admission procedure.
Therefore, the court quashed the rejection of the refund and asked to provide a refund with regulatory interest.
Facts:
The applicant, Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited, was engaged in furnishing education consultancy/marketing and recruitment support services to foreign universities. A writ petition was submitted by the applicant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contesting the order dated October 30, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, GST Division, Wazirpur, cancelling a refund of ₹2,63,38,771 claimed as a refund of IGST paid on export of services for the period September 2023 to March 2024 u/s 54 of the CGST Act, 2017.
An SCN has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur (“the Respondent”) dated October 08, 2025, asking the applicant to provide the agreements with foreign service recipients, invoices, FIRCs/e-BRCs, reconciliation statements and proofs to showcase that the services provided were not “intermediary services” u/s 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017.
Thus, the respondent cancelled the claimed refund vide order dated October 30, 2025 carrying that the applicant was advertising courses of foreign universities, identifying prospective students, helping recruitment/admission, and receiving commission linked to tuition fees, thereby acting as an agent/intermediary of foreign universities.
The applicant mentioned that receipt of commission from foreign universities does not alone make the applicant an intermediary. The applicant said that it provided consultancy, counselling, marketing and recruitment support services to foreign universities as per contractual arrangements, received consideration only from such universities and not from students, did not have authority to bind universities, could not guarantee admissions, and therefore satisfied all requirements of “export of services”.
The respondent claimed that the applicant was acting as an intermediary as per Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, since it streamlined recruitment/admission of students to foreign universities and served as an agent of such universities. As per the respondent, the relationship between the parties was one of principal and agent rather than principal-to-principal.
Read Also: Marketing & Technical Support to Foreign Parent Qualify as IGST Export, Not a Intermediary
The applicant, not satisfied with the refund rejection by treating the applicant as an intermediary and refusing export benefits, approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court through the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking dismissal of the impugned order and direction for grant of refund with interest.
Issue:
Whether education consultancy, marketing and recruitment support services provided via an Indian entity to foreign universities are entitled as “export of services” or are obligated to be categorised as “intermediary services” u/s 2(13) of the IGST Act?
Held:
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 17500/2025 held as under:
Said that education consultancy/marketing services provided to foreign universities were held to qualify as export of services and not intermediary services only because Indian students were incidentally assisted in the admission process.
Observed that the view taken in Global Opportunities was consistent with the order of the Bombay HC in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, wherein materially similar services rendered to foreign universities were held not to come under the definition of “intermediary”.
Observed that the judgment in Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited, via its Authorised Representative [2025 SCC OnLine Del 6316], said that a person furnishing services on its own account cannot be considered as an intermediary just because such services streamline or further the business objective of the foreign recipient.
Said that the determinative factors are the contractual recipient of service, the person obligated to pay consideration, and the nature of services supplied, and not the place where incidental beneficiaries are located.
Observed that the taxpayer had entered into agreements with foreign universities for giving education consultancy, marketing and recruitment support services; did not charge students; had no power to bind the foreign university; could not guarantee admissions; and received consideration only from foreign universities.
Read Also: No Service Tax on Consultancy to Foreign Clients, Not Classified as Intermediary Services
Said that, the facts of the present case were materially similar to Global Opportunities(supra), and even the Respondent did not show any issue with such similarity.
Stated that the impugned order dated October 30, 2025, denying refund by considering the applicant as intermediary services could not be sustained and accordingly quashed the same. It mentioned that the refund along with applicable statutory interest be processed and granted within 2 months.
| Case Title | Fateh Education Consulting Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner |
| Order No | W.P.(C) 17500/2025 |
| For Petitioner | Mr Kamal Sawhney, Mr Deepak Thackur, Mr Rishabh Mishra |
| For Respondent | Ms Anushree Narain, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr Naman Choula and Mr Yamit Jetley |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
