IDP Education India’s Service to IDP Australia is ‘Export,’ Not ‘Intermediary’: Rajasthan HC Orders Refund of IGST [Read Order]
The Court said that for a service provider to qualify as an intermediary, three parties must be involved. In this case, services were provided solely to IDP Australia under a principal-to-principal contract, with no direct dealings or agreements between IDP India and foreign universities or studen
IGST - refund - Taxscan
IGST - refund - Taxscan
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled in favor of IDP Education India Pvt. Ltd., holding that its services provided to IDP Education Ltd., Australia qualify as “export of services” and not as “intermediary services”. It allowed the IGST ( Integrated Goods and Services Tax ) refund.
The petitioner, IDP India, a subsidiary of IDP Australia, assists students aspiring to study abroad by providing counseling, course guidance, and enrollment services. While the final authority on admissions rests with IDP Australia, IDP India receives a share of the processing fee for the services rendered.
The Revenue had denied IGST refund on the ground that IDP India acted as an “intermediary,” fixing the place of supply in India and disqualifying it from zero-rated supply benefits.
Master the Latest Amendments in Income Tax Act Click here
While rejecting this stand, the Court said that for a service provider to qualify as an intermediary, three parties must be involved. In this case, services were provided solely to IDP Australia under a principal-to-principal contract, with no direct dealings or agreements between IDP India and foreign universities or students. It was noted that IDP India had no role in final admission decisions and therefore could not be classified as an intermediary.
The bench of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Maneesh Sharma relied on earlier rulings, including the CESTAT’s 2021 decision in the petitioner’s own case and the Bombay High Court’s 2025 ruling, both holding that such services amounted to export.
The court observed that “services provided by petitioner are qua IDP Australia under specific contract or arrangement with it. Not more than two parties are involved in this arrangement, namely, petitioner and IDP Australia. For someone to be called an “Intermediary”, there needs to be existence of three parties in the contract, in the absence of which, petitioner cannot be called as “Intermediary”. In the present case, the services rendered by petitioner are only to IDP Australia and, therefore, certainly qualifies to be “Export” as held by CESTAT in the order referred above and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.”
Stay Ahead with Expert Tax Insights – 2025 Edition Click here
The Court also noted CBIC’s September 2021 circular clarifying that the definition of “intermediary” remains unchanged under GST compared to the Service Tax law. It observed that the Revenue itself had sanctioned refund claims in Maharashtra based on this reasoning and thus could not take a contradictory stand in Rajasthan.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the petitions, set aside the orders denying refund, and directed the adjudicating authority to process IDP India’s refund claim along with applicable interest within four weeks.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
