Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Delhi High Court)
Education Consultancy Services Held Export of Services Because Foreign Universities Were the Actual Recipients; GST Refund Allowed Since Education Consultants Were Not Acting as Intermediaries; Marketing and Recruitment Support to Foreign Universities Not Taxable as Intermediary Services; No GST Intermediary Classification Because Consultant Had No Authority to Bind Foreign Universities; GST Refund Rejection Quashed Because Educational Consultancy Qualified as Export of Services.
The Delhi High Court set aside an order rejecting a GST refund claim filed by Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited and held that education consultancy, marketing, and recruitment support services provided to foreign universities qualify as “export of services” and not “intermediary services” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. The petitioner had sought refund of IGST amounting to ₹2,63,38,771 paid during September 2023 to March 2024 under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The refund was rejected by the department on the ground that the petitioner acted as an agent of foreign universities by promoting courses, identifying prospective students, assisting in admissions, and receiving commission linked to tuition fees.
The petitioner argued that it provided consultancy and marketing support services directly to foreign universities under contractual arrangements, received consideration solely from those universities, and did not charge Indian students. It was also contended that the agreements specifically clarified that no principal-agent relationship existed, and the petitioner had no authority to bind the universities or guarantee admissions. The petitioner relied on earlier decisions including Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited and the Bombay High Court ruling in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., where similar services were held to constitute export of services. The petitioner also pointed out that Special Leave Petitions against those judgments had been dismissed.
