Delhi High Court: Marketing for Foreign University Prima Facie 'Export of Services'

New Delhi – In a significant observation that reinforces the scope of 'export of services' under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, the Delhi High Court has stated that a private consultancy providing marketing services to a foreign university is prima facie entitled to a GST refund. The Court drew a direct parallel to its recent binding precedent, indicating a consistent judicial stance that offers clarity and relief to the burgeoning education consultancy sector in India.

The Division Bench, comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, was hearing a petition filed by Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited, which had been denied a GST refund claim by the tax authorities. The authorities had categorized the consultancy as an 'intermediary', a classification that would disqualify its services from being treated as an export and thus render it ineligible for a refund of the input tax credit.

Issuing a notice to the GST authority, the High Court observed that the facts of the present case were squarely covered by its recent decision in Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited . This pronouncement provides a strong indication of the likely outcome and sets a clear course for similar disputes pending before tax authorities and appellate forums.

---

Background of the Dispute: The 'Intermediary' Conundrum

The petitioner, Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited, provides dedicated marketing and promotional services in India for the prestigious University of Manchester. For these services, it receives consideration in convertible foreign exchange. As per the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, the export of services is treated as a 'zero-rated supply'. This means that while no GST is levied on the output service, the service provider can claim a refund of the GST paid on its input services and goods (Input Tax Credit or ITC), ensuring that taxes are not exported and Indian services remain competitive globally.

However, the petitioner's claim for a refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act was rejected. The adjudicating authority contended that Fateh Education was merely acting as an 'intermediary' by facilitating the supply of education services between the University of Manchester and prospective students in India.

The definition of 'intermediary' under Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, is crucial here. It refers to a broker, an agent, or any other person who arranges or facilitates the supply of goods or services between two or more persons, but does not include a person who supplies such goods or services on his own account. The place of supply for intermediary services is deemed to be the location of the supplier, which, in this case, is India. Consequently, if a service is classified as that of an intermediary, it falls outside the purview of 'export of services', as one of the key conditions—that the place of supply must be outside India—is not met.

This 'intermediary' classification has been a persistent point of contention for many Indian businesses that provide support services to foreign entities, leading to protracted litigation and uncertainty over GST refunds.

The Court's Prima Facie View and Reliance on Precedent

During the proceedings in Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur & Anr. , the High Court swiftly identified the core issue and its overlap with established law. The bench noted that the petitioner was providing a principal service of marketing directly to the foreign university, not merely facilitating admissions for students.

In its order, the Court unequivocally stated:

“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) .”

This observation is pivotal. It signals that the Court does not view the services as ancillary or facilitative, but as a distinct, principal supply of marketing services rendered to a client located abroad.

The reliance on the Global Opportunities judgment is particularly significant. In that landmark case, the same Division Bench had conducted a detailed analysis and concluded that providing services to foreign universities—which involved promoting courses, counselling students, and facilitating admissions in exchange for a commission—qualified as an 'export of services'. The Court had explicitly held that such entities could not be reductively termed as mere agents or intermediaries to deny their legitimate refund claims. The judgment emphasized that the primary contractual relationship was between the Indian consultancy and the foreign university, with the consultancy providing its services on its own account.

By stating that the present case is prima facie covered by this precedent, the High Court is reinforcing a legal principle that is vital for the education consultancy industry.

Legal and Industry Implications

The High Court's stance has wide-ranging implications for legal practitioners and the industry at large:

1. Strengthening Precedent: This case solidifies the legal position established in Global Opportunities . It indicates that the judiciary is keen on preventing tax authorities from narrowly interpreting the term 'intermediary' to deny refunds to legitimate exporters of services. For tax lawyers, it provides a robust and current precedent to cite in similar cases.

2. Clarity on Service Classification: The decision helps delineate the boundary between an 'intermediary' and a principal service provider. When an Indian entity has a direct contract with a foreign entity to supply a specific service (like marketing or promotion) for which it receives consideration, the service is rendered on its own account. The fact that the service indirectly benefits a third party (students) does not automatically make the provider an intermediary.

3. Boost for the Education Sector: India is a major hub for international education consulting. These firms bring in significant foreign exchange and create numerous jobs. The consistent judicial view protecting their ability to claim GST refunds ensures their financial viability and competitiveness on the global stage. It removes a major hurdle that often led to cash flow issues due to blocked tax refunds.

4. Judicial Scrutiny of Administrative Orders: In a notable move, the High Court not only issued notice to the GST department but also directed the specific officer who passed the impugned refund-rejection order to join the proceedings virtually on the next date of hearing. This step underscores a heightened level of judicial oversight, signalling to administrative authorities that decisions passed in contravention of established legal precedent will be subject to direct scrutiny.

The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on December 11th, where the respondents will present their case. However, the Court's strong prima facie observations, grounded in its own recent and comprehensive judgment, suggest that the petitioner has a formidable case. Legal experts will be watching closely to see the final outcome, which is expected to further cement the jurisprudence surrounding the 'export of services' in the context of the GST regime.

The petitioner, Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited, was represented by Mr. Kamal Sawhney. The respondents, the GST authorities, were represented by Ms. Anushree Narain, Senior Standing Counsel.