Education advisory services for foreign universities don't qualify as export under Section 2(6) IGST Act 2017

The AAR-WB ruled that overseas education advisory services promoting foreign university courses to prospective students do not qualify as export of services under Section 2(6) of IGST Act 2017. The applicant acted as recruitment agent for foreign universities, receiving commission-based consideration for student enrollment. Since the applicant operated as intermediary service provider representing universities in India, the place of supply was determined under Section 13(8)(b) as Indian territory, not qualifying for zero-rated supply treatment. The services remain taxable under GST Act, failing to meet export service conditions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the services provided by the applicant to foreign universities qualify as "export" under the IGST Act.
2. Whether the applicant is providing intermediary services or acting as an independent service provider.
3. Whether the place of supply of the services provided by the applicant is outside India.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought a ruling on whether their Overseas Education Advisory services to foreign universities constitute "export" under the IGST Act. The applicant argued that the services provided, promoting courses to prospective students, meet the criteria for export as per section 2(6) of the IGST Act, with the recipient located outside India and consideration received in foreign exchange.

2. The Advance Ruling Authority deliberated on whether the applicant was acting as an intermediary service provider or an independent service provider. The authority noted that the applicant's main service was facilitating recruitment of students for foreign universities, with promotional activities being ancillary. The applicant's consideration was tied to student recruitment performance, indicating a principal supply of recruitment services rather than independent promotion.

3. The determination of the place of supply was crucial in deciding the export status of the services. The authority analyzed the applicant's role as a recruitment agent for foreign universities, leading to the conclusion that the services were not "Export of Service" under the IGST Act. As the applicant was considered an intermediary service provider, the place of supply was deemed to be in India, making the services taxable under the GST Act.

Conclusion:
The ruling established that the applicant's services did not qualify as "Export of Service" and were deemed taxable under the GST Act. The decision was valid unless declared void under the relevant provisions of the GST Act.

---