Student Enrolment Services to Foreign University Not Intermediary

Centax Editorial Board

October 3, 2025

• 2 min. read

Intermediary Services vs Export of Services under GST

Case Details: IDP Education India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025) 34 Centax 374 (Raj.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

K.R. SHRIRAM, CJ. & Maneesh Sharma, J.
S/Shri Prasad Pranjape & Nitin Jain, for the Petitioner
S/Shri Bharat Vyas, AAG with Sandeep Pathak, Palash Gupta & Ms Niti Jain Bhandari, for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a subsidiary of an Australian company, submitted that it provided services to the Australian company relating to student enrolment in foreign universities. Under a bipartite arrangement, the petitioner assisted students by providing information on courses, qualification requirements, counselling, and enrolment guidance, but had no contractual relationship with the students or the foreign universities and no role in the final admission process. The petitioner classified these services supplied to the Australian company as export of services and claimed a refund of IGST paid for such zero-rated supplies. The petitioner contended that the services could not be treated as intermediary services, since there was no tripartite contractual relationship, and therefore the place of supply should be treated as outside India, qualifying for export and IGST refund. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that, for a service to qualify as an ‘intermediary’, there must exist a contract involving three parties; in the absence of such a contract, the petitioner could not be considered an intermediary. The Court observed that the services rendered by the petitioner were exclusively to the Australian company and therefore qualified as export of services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. The Court noted that the petitioner had no role in the final admission process and no contractual arrangements with the foreign universities or students, confirming that the supply was solely to the Australian company. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for processing the refund claim, which was to be paid along with applicable interest.