Education Consultancy Services to Foreign Universities are Export of Services, Not Intermediary Services Under GST: Delhi HC [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court held that education consultancy and marketing services provided by an Indian company to foreign universities will be treated as “export of services” and not “intermediary services” under the GST law.

The petitioner company had challenged an order dated October 30, 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur. By that order, the GSTdepartment rejected the company’s refund claim of around Rs. 2.63 crore. The refund was related to IGST paid between September 2023 and March 2024 on export of services.

Fateh Education Consulting submitted before the Court that it provides education consultancy, counselling, marketing and recruitment support services to foreign universities. The company said it promotes courses of foreign universities in India and helps students during the admission process. They argued that payment for these services is received only from foreign universities in foreign currency and not from Indian students.

The GST department rejected the refund claim by saying that the petitioner was acting as an “intermediary” or agent of foreign universities. According to the department, the petitioner was identifying students and receiving commission linked to tuition fees, the services cannot be treated as export of services.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court already settled the issue. The petitioner argued that just because commission is received from foreign universities, it does not become an intermediary.

The petitioner also argued that its agreements with foreign universities clearly show that it cannot bind the universities, cannot guarantee admissions and there is no principal-agent relationship between them.

The Revenue department adopted the same arguments which were earlier made in the Global Opportunities Private Limited case. The department argued that the petitioner was helping foreign universities in student recruitment and was acting like an agent.

Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul observed that the issue is no longer res integra and already settled by earlier judgments. The court explained that when an Indian company provides consultancy and marketing services to foreign universities, raises invoices on them and receives payment from them, such services cannot become intermediary services only because students are also helped in admission process.

The court also referred to the Bombay High Court judgment in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. and noted that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed against that judgment.

The court observed that the petitioner does not charge students, has no authority to bind foreign universities and receives payment only from foreign universities. Because of this, the court held that the petitioner’s case was fully covered by earlier judgments. The court set aside the order rejecting the refund claim and directed the GST department to process and release the refund with interest within two months.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates