Overseas university admissions help for Indian students via foreign entity treated as export, not intermediary; refund ordered

Services rendered by the petitioner in assisting Indian students to secure admissions in overseas universities through a foreign entity were examined to determine whether they constituted "export of services" under s.2(6) IGST Act and whether the petitioner was an "intermediary" under s.2(13) IGST Act. Following consistent views of other HCs holding that such education-admission facilitation does not amount to intermediary services and that the supplier is entitled to export treatment and consequential refund, the HC held the revenue could not take a contrary position. The impugned SCN and adjudication order were quashed and the matter was remanded for processing of the refund with applicable interest within the stipulated period.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the support/assistance services provided in India to a foreign principal under a principal-to-principal, bi-partite arrangement constitute "intermediary" services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, thereby fixing place of supply in India under Section 13(8)(b).

(ii) Consequent to the above, whether the impugned demand/show cause notice (proceeding on "intermediary" classification) could be sustained, or were liable to be quashed in view of the Court concurring with earlier High Court decisions on identical facts in the petitioner's own case.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Classification as "intermediary" versus principal-to-principal support services; effect on place of supply/export treatment

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The dispute was examined with reference to Section 2(13) of the IGST Act ("intermediary"), Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act (place of supply for intermediary services), and the petitioner's claim of "export" treatment under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court proceeded on undisputed facts that the petitioner provided assistance to Indian students for admission to universities abroad through the foreign principal, that consideration flowed from the foreign principal to the petitioner, and that the relationship was principal-to-principal with the final decision on admissions resting with the foreign principal. The Court concurred with earlier High Court determinations (in the petitioner's own case) that, on such facts, the arrangement involved not more than two contracting parties (the petitioner and the foreign principal) for the services rendered by the petitioner; the petitioner had no contractual arrangement with the universities or the students and no role in the final admission decision. On that basis, the Court accepted the view that the petitioner was not "facilitating or arranging" a supply as an intermediary but was rendering services to its foreign principal under a bi-partite contract.

Conclusion: The Court accepted that the petitioner was not an "intermediary" for the impugned period/transactions, and therefore the revenue's premise for applying Section 13(8)(b) (place of supply in India) to raise tax demand was not sustainable on the facts as conclusively viewed by the Court.

Issue (ii): Sustainability of the impugned demand/show cause notice in light of final, implemented decisions on identical facts

Legal framework (as applied): The Court based its disposal on its concurrence with earlier High Court judgments on the same issue in the petitioner's own case, noting their finality and implementation, and the revenue's fair statement that the matter was covered.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recorded that two Division Bench judgments from other High Courts had already considered and decided the identical issue in the petitioner's favour, and that those judgments had not been challenged by the revenue and had been implemented. The revenue conceded that, in these circumstances, the petitioner's case was squarely covered. The Court expressly concurred with the views in those judgments and applied them to the present petitions.

Conclusion: The petitions were allowed, and the impugned order and show cause notice-both founded on treating the petitioner as an intermediary and requiring tax deposit accordingly-were quashed.

---