<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (12) TMI 1534 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783994</link>
    <description>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 &quot;export of services&quot; under s.2(6) IGST Act and whether the petitioner was an &quot;intermediary&quot; 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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1534 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783994</link>
      <description>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 &quot;export of services&quot; under s.2(6) IGST Act and whether the petitioner was an &quot;intermediary&quot; 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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>