Synopsis

The petitioner, an education consultancy firm, provided marketing and recruitment support services to foreign universities. It received commission from the universities, did not charge Indian students, and filed for refund of IGST paid on the ground of “export of services”. The GST department rejected the refund, treating the petitioner as an “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, arguing that the petitioner was facilitating supply between the foreign university and Indian students. The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection order, following its own binding precedent in Global Opportunities Private Limited (2025) and the Bombay High Court’s decision in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. (upheld by the Supreme Court). The court held that the petitioner was providing services directly to foreign universities on a principal-to-principal basis, and was not an “intermediary”. The department was directed to process the refund of ₹2,63,38,771/- with interest within two months.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul (Division Bench)

Date of Decision: 8th May, 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 17500/2025 (2026:DHC:4052-DB)

Core Law: Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Section 54 (refund); Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Section 2(13) (definition of “intermediary”), Section 2(6) (export of services); Goods and Services Tax (export of services) rules

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi

W.p.(c) 17500/2025

Fateh education consulting private limited (petitioner) vs. Assistant commissioner, cgst division, wazirpur and anr. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice nitin wasudeo sambre and hon’ble mr. justice ajay digpaul

Date of decision: 8th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

Central goods and services tax act, 2017 – section 54 (refund of tax)

Integrated goods and services tax act, 2017 – section 2(6) (definition of “export of services”), section 2(13) (definition of “intermediary” – a broker, agent or any other person who arranges or facilitates supply of goods or services between two or more persons, but does not include a person who supplies goods or services on his own account)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether an Indian entity providing education consultancy, marketing and recruitment support services to foreign universities (with payment received from those universities, not from students) qualifies as “export of services” or falls within the definition of “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, thereby disentitling it to refund of IGST paid.

Key legal principles applied:

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.