TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he writ petition seeks, inter alia, quashing of the said order and a direction to the respondent department to grant refund of Rs.2,63,38,771/- along with interest. 2. The refund claim in question was filed on the ground of "Export of Services - with Payment of Tax" and pertains to Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid for the period September 2023 to March 2024. The petitioner claimed refund of Rs.2,63,38,771/- under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ["CGST Act"]. In support of the claim, the petitioner placed reliance on its service agreements with foreign universities, export invoices, e-BRCs/FIRCs, reconciliation statements and other supporting documents. 3. On 08.10.2025, the respondent department issued a Show Cause Notice ["SCN"] to the petitioner, calling upon it to furnish, inter alia, copies of service agreements with foreign recipients of service, invoices of inward supplies, documentary proof correlating foreign inward remittances with export invoices, self-certified copies of BRCs/FIRCs, and material to demonstrate that the services for which refund was claimed were not intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of India, 2025 : BHC NAG : 2166-DB. The SLP assailing the decision of the Bombay High Court in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) was dismissed in The Union of India v. K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 21104-21105/2025. The case of the Petitioner is that said decisions have not been properly considered by the Assessing Authority. 5. Prima facie, the Petitioner is providing marketing services for a foreign university i.e., University of Manchester, and in the opinion of this Court, the factual situation would clearly be covered in the decision of this Court in Global Opportunities Private Limited (Supra)." Submissions made on behalf of the petitioner 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 is ex facie contrary to the settled legal position governing education consultancy and marketing support services rendered by Indian entities to foreign universities. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed a refund application for the period September 2023 to March 2024, seeking refund of tax paid on account of export of services with payment of tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is submitted that the said judgment considered the decision of the Bombay High Court in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of 2025 : BHC NAG : 2166-DB as well as the dismissal of the Department's Special Leave Petition therefrom. The petitioner also relies upon the subsequent dismissal of the Department's Special Leave Petition against Global Opportunities Private Limited. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the petitioner, and that the respondent department, despite noticing the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, failed to meaningfully advert to or apply the binding precedents. On this ground, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Submissions made on behalf of the respondents 11. Ms. Anushree Narain, learned senior standing counsel fairly submits that the respondents do not dispute the legal position governing the issue involved in the present petition. She submits that the issue stands covered by the judgment of this Court in Global Opportunities Private Limited. However, she submits that the respondents would adopt the submissions advanced by the Department in that matter. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Supra), wherein, in materially similar circumstances, it was held that the assessee was providing services to universities located outside India, which were paying consideration to the assessee, and that the assessee could not be treated as providing services to students in India merely by recommending their names to foreign universities. The Bombay High Court accordingly held that such services would not fall within the definition of "intermediary" and that the assessee would be entitled to refund, subject to receipt of consideration in foreign currency. The Special Leave Petitions preferred by the Union of India against the said judgment were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having regard to the judgment in Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Mumbai v. Vodafone India Ltd. Civil Appeal Nos. 10815-10819/2014 and the order in Commissioner, Central Excise, CGST-Delhi South Commissionerate v. Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd. SLP (C) No. 25992/2024. 17. In Global Opportunities Private Limited, this Court also considered the line of judgments including Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Add. Commr. CGST Appeals-II, Delhi (2023) 73 GSTL 161 (Del.),, K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., Vodafone Indi....