<?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>Student admission facilitation for foreign universities via overseas entity treated as export, not &#039;intermediary&#039;; GST demand quashed, refund ordered</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95430</link>
    <description>Services of facilitating Indian students&#039; admissions to foreign universities through a foreign entity were examined to determine whether they constituted &quot;export of services&quot; and whether the supplier qualified as an &quot;intermediary&quot; under the IGST Act. Relying on bindingly persuasive precedents holding that identical facilitation services are not intermediary services and therefore qualify for export treatment, and noting that those decisions had attained finality and were implemented, the Court held the supplier was not an intermediary, making GST demand unsustainable. Consequently, the show-cause notice and the impugned order were quashed, and the matter was remitted for processing the refund with applicable interest within four weeks. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Student admission facilitation for foreign universities via overseas entity treated as export, not &#039;intermediary&#039;; GST demand quashed, refund ordered</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95430</link>
      <description>Services of facilitating Indian students&#039; admissions to foreign universities through a foreign entity were examined to determine whether they constituted &quot;export of services&quot; and whether the supplier qualified as an &quot;intermediary&quot; under the IGST Act. Relying on bindingly persuasive precedents holding that identical facilitation services are not intermediary services and therefore qualify for export treatment, and noting that those decisions had attained finality and were implemented, the Court held the supplier was not an intermediary, making GST demand unsustainable. Consequently, the show-cause notice and the impugned order were quashed, and the matter was remitted for processing the refund with applicable interest within four weeks. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95430</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>