### Education Consultancy Services for Foreign Universities Do Not Constitute Intermediary Services, Qualifying as Export of Services.

The Petitioner, an education consultancy firm, provides marketing and recruitment support services to foreign universities, receiving consideration in foreign inward remittances.

The Petitioner filed a refund claim of ₹2,63,38,771 for Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on "Export of Services" for the period September 2023 to March 2024.

The Respondent Department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 08.10.2025, questioning the admissibility of the refund.

On 30.10.2025, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, holding that the Petitioner acted as an "agent" and thus qualified as an "intermediary" under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017, precluding the services from being classified as "export of services".

Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, which defines an "intermediary" as a broker or agent who facilitates the supply of goods or services between two or more persons but does not include a person who supplies such services on their own account.

The precedent set in Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited (2025), which held that marketing services for foreign universities are not intermediary services.

References to K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2025) and Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Mumbai v. Vodafone India Ltd., establishing that providing services on a principal-to-principal basis to a foreign recipient does not constitute an intermediary relationship even if those services facilitate admissions for students.

The court observed that the Petitioner’s activities—promoting courses, identifying students, and assisting in admissions—are performed under contractual agreements where the foreign university is the sole recipient of the service and the sole payer of consideration.

The court rejected the Department's contention that receiving "commission" automatically creates an agency/intermediary relationship, noting that the Petitioner has no authority to bind the university or guarantee admissions.

Following the rationale in Global Opportunities, the court found that because the Petitioner supplies services on its own account to foreign institutions, the place of supply is outside India.

The court emphasized that the Department failed to apply binding precedents despite the factual matrix being "materially similar" to established case law where such activities were ruled as exports rather than intermediary facilitation.

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 and directed the Respondent Department to process and grant the refund of ₹2,63,38,771 along with applicable statutory interest within two months.