The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited, determining that their education consultancy and recruitment support services provided to foreign universities cannot be classified as "intermediary services" under the Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. Fateh Education had filed a GST refund claim for services exported between September 2023 and March 2024, which was initially rejected by the Department on the grounds that the company acted as an intermediary by facilitating student recruitment.
The Court noted that the services were rendered directly to foreign universities, with invoices raised and payments received in foreign currency, establishing the universities as the actual service recipients. The involvement of Indian students was deemed incidental and did not alter the nature of the services as exports. The Court emphasized that a service provider does not become an intermediary merely because their services support another entity’s business goals.
Read More: AAR Gujarat: Since Notification referred only to “fuel”, concessional rate cannot be extended to electric bus services - Electric bus rental services with operators taxable at 18% [Order attached]
Referring to precedents like Global Opportunities Private Limited and K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., the Court reiterated that the contractual relationship, the flow of consideration, and the nature of the services are crucial in determining the service classification. The Court found no principal-agent relationship between Fateh Education and the foreign universities, nor any binding authority over the universities by the petitioner. Consequently, the earlier refund rejection was overturned, directing the authorities to grant the refund with statutory interest within two months.
Order Date - 08 May 2026
Parties: Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division Wazirpur & Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi West Commissionerate
Facts -
- Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited was engaged in providing education consultancy, marketing, and recruitment support services to foreign universities and filed a GST refund claim of ₹2.63 crore for export of services relating to September 2023 to March 2024.
- The Department issued a show cause notice seeking agreements with foreign universities, export invoices, FIRCs/e-BRCs, and proof that the services were not intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act.
- The petitioner submitted replies, reconciliation statements, export documents, and attended personal hearing, contending that it only provided promotional and consultancy services to foreign universities and did not charge students in India.
- However, the refund was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was allegedly acting as an agent/intermediary for foreign universities since it assisted in student recruitment and earned commission linked to tuition fees.
Issue -
- Whether education consultancy and recruitment support services provided to foreign universities qualify as “export of services” or are taxable as “intermediary services”?
Order -
- The Delhi High Court observed that the issue was already settled through earlier decisions including Global Opportunities Private Limited and K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. The Court reiterated that services rendered by Indian education consultants to foreign universities do not become intermediary services merely because Indian students are incidentally benefited in the process.
- The Court noted that the petitioner was rendering services directly to foreign universities, raising invoices on them, and receiving consideration from them in foreign currency. Therefore, the actual recipient of services was the foreign university and not the students located in India.
- The Court further emphasized that a person supplying services on its own account cannot automatically be termed an intermediary simply because such services facilitate another entity’s business objectives. The determining factors are the contractual relationship, consideration flow, and nature of services supplied.
- The Court found that the petitioner had no authority to bind foreign universities, could not guarantee admissions, and did not maintain a principal-agent relationship with the universities. Since the factual matrix was materially identical to earlier precedents, the refund rejection order was held unsustainable and was set aside with direction to grant refund along with statutory interest within two months.
