Fateh Education Consulting Pvt Ltd Wins Case Against Assistant Commissioner Over Intermediary Services Classification
In a landmark judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court, Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited has emerged victorious in its legal battle against the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, GST Division, Wazirpur. The Court ruled that the services provided by the petitioner to foreign universities do not classify as "intermediary" services under Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thus affirming their eligibility for a GST refund.
The petitioner, Fateh Education Consulting, engaged in providing education consultancy, marketing, and recruitment support services to foreign universities, faced rejection of its refund claim amounting to Rs. 2,63,38,771/- by the Assistant Commissioner. The rejection was based on the premise that the petitioner was acting as an intermediary, facilitating the recruitment of students on behalf of foreign universities, which led to the denial of the refund under the export of services category.
The High Court, presided by Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul, scrutinized the contractual arrangements between Fateh Education Consulting and the foreign universities. The petitioner argued that its services are rendered directly to foreign universities under contractual agreements, with no charges levied on Indian students. The commission received from foreign universities, it contended, does not convert the petitioner into an intermediary.
The judgment drew upon precedents set by the Delhi High Court in the case of Global Opportunities Private Limited and the Bombay High Court in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., where services similar to those provided by Fateh Education were deemed eligible for GST refund. The Court emphasized that the determinative factor is the contractual recipient of the service and the person liable to pay consideration, not the incidental assistance provided to Indian students.
The Court observed that the petitioner promotes courses, counsels prospective students, and assists in the admission process, all while receiving consideration solely from foreign universities. Such activities, it held, do not constitute intermediary services, as they do not involve facilitation of supply between two other persons.
Counsel for the respondents, Ms. Anushree Narain, acknowledged the legal position established in previous judgments and did not dispute the similarity of services rendered by the petitioner to those in the Global Opportunities case. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2025, directing the refund to be processed and granted to Fateh Education Consulting along with applicable statutory interest within two months.
This decision reinforces the legal framework governing GST refunds on export of services, providing clarity on the classification of education consultancy services. The judgment is expected to have significant implications for other entities providing similar services, ensuring that they are not unjustly classified as intermediaries under the GST regime.
Bottom line:-
GST - Education consultancy, marketing, and recruitment support services provided by Indian entities to foreign universities do not qualify as "intermediary" services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017, and are eligible for refund under export of services.
Statutory provision(s): Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017, Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017
