TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the marketing, recruitment and referral services provided by an Indian education consultant to foreign universities/colleges constitute "intermediary" services under Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, or are independent supplies of marketing/recruitment/referral consultancy.
2. If classified as intermediary services, whether such services qualify as "export of services" under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 and thereby escape GST liability.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Classification: Intermediary vs. Independent Consultant
Legal framework: Section 2(13) IGST Act defines "intermediary" as a broker/agent/any person who arranges or facilitates supply of goods or services between two or more persons, excluding a person who supplies such goods/services on his own account. CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST provides guiding principles and illustrative scenarios distinguishing intermediary supplies (ancillary facilitation) from principal supplies (own-account services).
Precedent treatment: A consistent line of AAR/AAAR decisions has treated student recruitment/marketing services that facilitate supply of education by a foreign university to Indian students as intermediary services where the supplier does not supply the main service on its own account. Some decisions and a CESTAT order under the erstwhile Service Tax regime arrived at contrary results on narrower facts; a recent Telangana AAR reached an outlying conclusion on similar facts.
Interpretation and reasoning: Substance prevails over contractual form. Examination of the recruiting/service agreement revealed (i) commission-based remuneration contingent on successful student enrollment; (ii) operational and marketing control and guidelines imposed by the foreign institution (branding, pre-approvals); (iii) obligation to refer and submit student applications for university consideration; (iv) absence of standalone, fixed-retainer consultancy engagements or independent market/strategic advisory functions; and (v) promotional/operational expenses borne by the contractor with only pre-approved reimbursements. These features demonstrate facilitation of the university's supply of educational services rather than independent supply on the applicant's own account. The applicant's income being contingent on tuition payments and conversion indicates the applicant's role is ancillary and facilitative to the primary supply (education) and not a principal supply of consultancy services.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a service provider (a) markets, screens and refers students exclusively for tied-up foreign institutions, (b) operates under contracting terms and university control, and (c) is remunerated by commission contingent on student enrollment, such provider meets the statutory definition of "intermediary" under Section 2(13). Obiter - observations distinguishing isolated earlier tribunal or AAR decisions under different statutory regimes or materially different fact patterns.
Conclusion: The service provider's activities constitute intermediary services within the meaning of Section 2(13) IGST Act, 2017 and not independent marketing/recruitment/referral consultancy supplied on its own account.
Issue 2 - Export of Services: Whether intermediary services qualify as export
Legal framework: Section 2(6) IGST Act defines "export of services", requiring, inter alia, that the supplier is in India, recipient is outside India, place of supply is outside India, payment is in convertible foreign exchange, and supplier is not merely a branch/establishment of a person in India. Section 13(8)(b) IGST Act provides that for intermediary services the place of supply is the location of the supplier.
Precedent treatment: Judicial and quasi-judicial authorities have upheld the competence of Parliament to treat place of supply of intermediary services as the supplier's location and have applied Section 13(8)(b) to tax intermediary supplies located in India. AAR/AAAR precedents applying Section 13(8)(b) treat similar recruitment/marketing commissions as taxable in India where the intermediary is located in India.
Interpretation and reasoning: Since intermediary services by statutory definition have their place of supply at the supplier's location (Section 13(8)(b)), and the supplier is located in India, the place of supply is India. One of the essential conditions for export of services is that the place of supply be outside India. Even where other conditions (foreign recipient, payment in foreign exchange) are met, the place-of-supply rule for intermediaries prevents these services from qualifying as exports. The contingency of commission payment upon enrollment and the integrated nature of services with the education supply chain strengthen the conclusion that place-of-supply rules apply to make the supply taxable in India.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - intermediary services supplied by a person located in India have their place of supply in India under Section 13(8)(b) and therefore do not meet the place-of-supply criterion for "export of services" under Section 2(6). Obiter - commentary on alternative fact patterns where truly independent consultancy, retainer-based marketing, or standalone services to non-enrolled individuals could qualify as exported services if all statutory export conditions including place of supply are satisfied.
Conclusion: The intermediary services do not qualify as "export of services" because the place of supply is India under Section 13(8)(b); therefore such services are taxable under IGST/GST and do not qualify for export exemption.
Ancillary issues and clarifications
On contractual form vs. substance: The contractual label "principal-to-principal" or a clause disclaiming agency or partnership does not determine character; substance and actual functional attributes govern classification for GST purposes.
On consultant characterization: "Consultant" lacks a statutory definition and must be assessed commercially; features such as strategic advisory, retainer-based remuneration, autonomy and independent client base would support a consultancy classification. Absence of those features and presence of targeted, commission-linked facilitation weigh against classification as a consultant.
On separability of services to students: If the intermediary were to supply distinct services directly to students (e.g., chargeable, independently billed visa services), those could constitute separate taxable supplies to students. In the absence of evidence of such independent supplies, support services forming part of admission facilitation are ancillary to the intermediary role.
On precedent weight: Decisions under prior Service Tax law or isolated AARs with narrow facts do not displace the interpretative consensus under GST where statutory definitions (Section 2(13), Section 13(8)(b)) and application to the contractual substance were considered by multiple authorities.
Overall Conclusions
1. The described marketing, recruitment and referral activities amount to intermediary services as defined in Section 2(13) IGST Act, 2017.
2. Such intermediary services, with place of supply at the supplier's location in India under Section 13(8)(b), do not satisfy the place-of-supply requirement for export under Section 2(6) IGST Act and therefore do not qualify as export of services exempt from GST.
TaxTMI 
