Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner, Cgst Division, Wazirpur & Anr.

$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 8 May, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 17500/2025
FATEH EDUCATION CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING IT‘S OFFICE AT:
GROUND FLOOR, 6/15, BALRAJ KHANNA MARG,
EAST PATEL NAGAR, CENTRAL DELHI, DELHI-110008
THROUGH IT‘S AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. VISHAL GUPTA ..... PETITIONER

Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Deepak
Thackur and Mr. Rishabh Mishra,
Advocates.
versus
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ,
CGST DIVISION, WAZIRPUR
CGST DELHI WEST COMMISSIONERATE,
RD
3 FLOOR, GST BHAWAN, NANGAL RAYA,
DDA RETAIL BUSINESS CENTRE,
PLOT NO. 1, NANGAL RAYA,
JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110046
..... RESPONDENT NO.1
2. COMMISSIONER, DIVISION WAZIRPUR ,
CENTRAL TAX DELHI WEST COMMISSIONERATE,
3RD FLOOR, GST BHAWAN,
PLOT NO. 1, RETAIL TRADE CENTRE,
DDA COMPLEX, NANGAL RAYA,
JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110046
..... RESPONDENT NO.2
Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr. Naman Choula and
Mr. Yamit Jetley, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:16:26
W.P.(C) 17500/2025 Page 1 of 10

JUDGMENT (ORAL)


AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
Factual Matrix
1. The petitioner, Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited, is stated
to be engaged in providing education consultancy/marketing and recruitment
support services to foreign universities. The present writ petition has been
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated
30.10.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, GST
Division, Wazirpur, whereby the petitioner‘s refund claim came to be
rejected. The writ petition seeks, inter alia , quashing of the said order and a
direction to the respondent department to grant refund of ₹2,63,38,771/-
along with interest.
2. The refund claim in question was filed on the ground of ―Export of
Services — with Payment of Tax‖ and pertains to Integrated Goods and
Services Tax paid for the period September 2023 to March 2024. The
petitioner claimed refund of ₹2,63,38,771/- under Section 54 of the Central
1
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 . In support of the claim, the petitioner
placed reliance on its service agreements with foreign universities, export
invoices, e-BRCs/FIRCs, reconciliation statements and other supporting
documents.
3. On 08.10.2025, the respondent department issued a Show Cause
2
Notice to the petitioner, calling upon it to furnish, inter alia , copies of
service agreements with foreign recipients of service, invoices of inward

1
Hereinafter ―CGST Act‖
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:16:26
W.P.(C) 17500/2025 Page 2 of 10

supplies, documentary proof correlating foreign inward remittances with
export invoices, self-certified copies of BRCs/FIRCs, and material to
demonstrate that the services for which refund was claimed were not
intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and
3
Services Tax Act, 2017 . The SCN recorded that the refund claimed
appeared inadmissible and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to
why the same ought not to be rejected.
4. The petitioner filed its reply to the SCN on 14.10.2025 and, thereafter,
also corresponded with the Department by e-mails dated 27.10.2025 and
29.10.2025, enclosing further documents including pending e-BRCs,
reconciliation with corresponding export invoices, and sample export
invoices for the relevant period. A personal hearing was also held before the
respondent department on 28.10.2025.
5. By the impugned order dated 30.10.2025, the respondent department
rejected the petitioner‘s refund application on the ground that the petitioner
was promoting courses of foreign universities, identifying suitable
prospective students, assisting in recruitment of such students, and receiving
commission linked to tuition fees paid by such students. On that basis, the
respondent held that the petitioner was acting as an agent of the foreign
university and was liable to be treated as an intermediary under Section
2(13) of the IGST Act, with the result that the services did not qualify as
export of services. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this
Court by way of the present writ petition.
6. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to note

2
Hereinafter ―SCN‖
3
Hereinafter ―IGST Act‖
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:16:26
W.P.(C) 17500/2025 Page 3 of 10

that the predecessor Bench, vide order dated 18.11.2025, had noticed the
central issue arising in the present petition and the petitioner‘s reliance on
the judgments governing the controversy. The relevant portion of the said
order is reproduced hereunder:
―2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the order dated 30th
October, 20205 (hereinafter, ‗ impugned order’ ) passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Central Tax, GST Division – Wazirpur.
3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has been denied the
refund by holding it to be an intermediary, which would be contrary to the
judgement in this Court in Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service
Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited, through its
Authorized Representative, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6316.
4. This Court in the said decision considered the decision of the Bombay
High Court in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025
: BHCNAG : 2166-DB. The SLP assailing the decision of the Bombay
High Court in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd.(Supra) was dismissed
in The Union of India v. K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., Petition (s)
for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 21104-21105/2025 . The case of the
Petitioner is that said decisions have not been properly considered by the
Assessing Authority.
5. Prima facie , the Petitioner is providing marketing services for a foreign
university i.e., University of Manchester, and in the opinion of this Court,
the factual situation would clearly be covered in the decision of this Court
in Global Opportunities Private Limited (Supra). ‖
Submissions made on behalf of the petitioner
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
impugned order dated 30.10.2025 is ex facie contrary to the settled legal
position governing education consultancy and marketing support services
rendered by Indian entities to foreign universities. It is submitted that the
petitioner had filed a refund application for the period September 2023 to
March 2024, seeking refund of tax paid on account of export of services
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:16:26
W.P.(C) 17500/2025 Page 4 of 10

with payment of tax. The refund has, however, been rejected on the ground
that the petitioner is an “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST
Act, merely because the petitioner receives commission from foreign
universities. According to the petitioner, the receipt of consideration by way
of commission does not, by itself, convert the petitioner into an intermediary
or agent of the foreign university.
8. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is engaged in promoting
foreign universities and providing counselling, marketing and recruitment
support services in India. The petitioner receives consideration only from
foreign universities and no consideration is charged from Indian students. It
is contended that the recipient of the petitioner‘s services is located outside
India, the consideration is received from such foreign universities, and the
services are rendered under contractual arrangements with those universities.
On this basis, it is submitted that the petitioner satisfies the requirements of
export of services and cannot be treated as facilitating a supply between two
other persons.
9. It is further submitted that the respondent department itself does not
dispute the nature of the activities performed by the petitioner, namely,
promotion of courses, counselling of prospective students, and assistance in
the application/admission process. The error, according to the petitioner, lies
in the respondent‘s conclusion that such activities amount to facilitation of
recruitment by an agent of the foreign university. Learned counsel submits
that the sample agreement with the University of Manchester demonstrates
that the petitioner has no authority to bind the university, cannot guarantee
admission or enrolment, cannot contract on behalf of the university, and
does not stand in a principal-agent relationship with the university. On the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:16:26
W.P.(C) 17500/2025 Page 5 of 10

contrary, the agreement expressly provides that nothing therein creates a
partnership, joint venture, principal-agent relationship, or employer-
employee relationship between the university and the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of this Court in
Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global
4
Opportunities Private Limited , wherein, according to the petitioner,
services of an identical nature were held to qualify as export of services and
not intermediary services. It is submitted that the said judgment considered
the decision of the Bombay High Court in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt.
5
Ltd. v. Union of India , as well as the dismissal of the Department‘s Special
Leave Petition therefrom. The petitioner also relies upon the subsequent
dismissal of the Department‘s Special Leave Petition against Global
Opportunities Private Limited . Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the
issue stands squarely covered in favour of the petitioner, and that the
respondent department, despite noticing the judgments relied upon by the
petitioner, failed to meaningfully advert to or apply the binding precedents.
On this ground, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
Submissions made on behalf of the respondents
11. Ms. Anushree Narain, learned senior standing counsel fairly submits
that the respondents do not dispute the legal position governing the issue
involved in the present petition. She submits that the issue stands covered by
the judgment of this Court in Global Opportunities Private Limited .

4
2025 SCC OnLine Del 6316
5
2025 : BHCNAG : 2166-DB
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:16:26
W.P.(C) 17500/2025 Page 6 of 10

However, she submits that the respondents would adopt the submissions
advanced by the Department in that matter.
12. The submission advanced by the Department in Global Opportunities
Private Limited was that the assessee therein was an “intermediary” within
the meaning of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act and, therefore, its services did
not qualify as export of services. It was contended that since the assessee
was acting as an intermediary, it was not entitled to exemption from
payment of GST under Section 5 of the IGST Act. The Department had
further submitted that the assessee was acting as an agent of the principal,
which was the concerned foreign university, and that for a service to
constitute export of services, the relationship between the parties ought to be
on a principal-to-principal basis and not one of principal and agent.
13. It was also advanced by the Department in Global Opportunities
Private Limited that certain clauses in the agreements entered into by the
assessee therein described it as an agent of the foreign university, and
therefore, the assessee could not claim that it was providing services on its
own account as a principal.
14. Ms. Narain submits that the respondents adopt the aforesaid
submissions in the present case as well as, even according to her, the nature
of services rendered by the petitioner herein is materially similar to the
nature of services considered by this Court in Global Opportunities Private
Limited .
Analysis & Conclusion
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, this Court is of the view that the issue arising in the present petition
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:16:26
W.P.(C) 17500/2025 Page 7 of 10

is no longer res integra . The question whether education consultancy,
marketing and recruitment support services rendered by an Indian entity to
foreign universities would qualify as export of services, or would fall within
the ambit of “intermediary” services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act,
has already been considered by this Court in Global Opportunities Private
Limited . In the said decision, this Court held that where the Indian entity
renders educational consultancy/marketing services to foreign universities,
raises invoices upon such foreign universities, and receives consideration
from them, such services would not constitute intermediary services merely
because students in India are incidentally assisted in the process.
16. The said view is consistent with the judgment of the Bombay High
Court in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) , wherein, in materially
similar circumstances, it was held that the assessee was providing services to
universities located outside India, which were paying consideration to the
assessee, and that the assessee could not be treated as providing services to
students in India merely by recommending their names to foreign
universities. The Bombay High Court accordingly held that such services
would not fall within the definition of “intermediary” and that the assessee
would be entitled to refund, subject to receipt of consideration in foreign
currency. The Special Leave Petitions preferred by the Union of India
against the said judgment were dismissed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court,
having regard to the judgment in Commissioner of Service Tax-III,
6
Mumbai v. Vodafone India Ltd. and the order in Commissioner, Central
7
Excise, CGST-Delhi South Commissionerate v. Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd.

6
Civil Appeal Nos. 10815-10819/2014
7
SLP (C) No. 25992/2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:16:26
W.P.(C) 17500/2025 Page 8 of 10

17. In Global Opportunities Private Limited , this Court also considered
the line of judgments including Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Add. Commr. CGST
8
Appeals-II, Delhi , K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. , Vodafone India
Ltd. , Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd. and other decisions, and held that a person
who supplies services on its own account cannot be treated as an
intermediary merely because such services may facilitate or further the
business objective of the foreign recipient. The determinative factor is not
the place where the incidental beneficiary may be located, but the
contractual recipient of the service, the person liable to pay consideration,
and the nature of the service supplied. This Court held that the respondent
therein was engaged by foreign educational institutions for providing
consultancy services and, upon rendering such services, received
consideration from the said foreign universities and such relationship could
not be characterised as intermediary services.
18. In the present case also, the petitioner has entered into agreements
with foreign universities for providing education consultancy, marketing and
recruitment support services. The impugned order itself proceeds on the
basis that the petitioner promotes courses of the foreign university, identifies
prospective students, assists in the recruitment/admission process and
receives commission from the foreign university. Furthermore, the petitioner
does not charge students for such services, has no authority to bind the
foreign university, cannot guarantee admission, and receives consideration
from the foreign university. The factual matrix, therefore, is materially
similar to that considered by this Court in Global Opportunities Private
Limited and by the Bombay High Court in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt.

8
(2023) 73 GSTL 161 (Del.),
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:16:26
W.P.(C) 17500/2025 Page 9 of 10

Ltd. .
19. It is also relevant that Ms. Anushree Narain, learned senior standing
counsel appearing for the respondents, while adopting the submissions
advanced by the Department in Global Opportunities Private Limited , has
also not disputed that the nature of services rendered by the petitioner in the
present case is materially similar to the services considered by this Court in
Global Opportunities Private Limited . Thus, even upon considering the
submissions adopted on behalf of the Department, the controversy remains
squarely covered by the judgment of this Court. In view of the settled
position of law and its application to the facts of the present case, the
impugned order dated 30.10.2025, which rejects the refund claim by treating
the petitioner as an intermediary, cannot be sustained.
20. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 is set aside. The
refund shall be processed and granted to the petitioner along with applicable
statutory interest, in accordance with law, within a period of two months.
21. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.

AJAY DIGPAUL
(JUDGE)


NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
(JUDGE)
MAY 8, 2026/ ar /yr

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:08.05.2026
16:16:26
W.P.(C) 17500/2025 Page 10 of 10