Petitioner not an "intermediary" under IGST Act; entitled to GST refund if payment received in foreign currency

HC held that petitioner does not fall within the definition of intermediary under the IGST Act and therefore is entitled to a refund of GST paid, subject to receipt of the consideration in foreign currency, given the definition of "recipient" and scope of export of services; petition allowed.

---

---

Only a single contention was pressed: non-compliance with sub-clause (3) of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act (definition of "export of services"). The Bench holds the entire definition must be read as a whole and in the background of the statutory definition of "recipient" (Sec. 2(93) GST Act) and Sec. 13(2), in conjunction with the definition of "intermediary" (Sec. 2(13) IGST Act). Reliance is placed on the Division Bench decision in Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Addl. Com. CGST and CBIC Circular No. 159/15/21-GST dated 20.9.2021. A Service Tax Appellate Tribunal decision concerning the petitioner was also noted, which treated the petitioner as providing services to foreign universities (consideration paid by those universities) and not to students in India. Applying the combined statutory reading, the petitioner falls within the definition entitling it to refund of GST paid, "subject to receipt of the consideration in foreign currency." The impugned order dated 7.3.2024 is quashed and set aside; petitions are allowed; no costs.

---