Facts of the Case

IDP Education India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of the Australian company IDP Education Ltd. (IDP Australia), provides student-placement, counselling and enrolment-related services to IDP Australia under a service agreement, receiving 77% of the application processing fee as consideration. IDP Australia in turn contracts with foreign universities to assist in student recruitment. The petitioner treated its services to IDP Australia as export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 and claimed refund of IGST paid on such zero-rated supply under Section 16(3)(b). The Original and Appellate Authorities held that the petitioner was an “intermediary” facilitating supply between IDP Australia, foreign universities and students, and therefore denied export status and the refund. Under the erstwhile service tax regime, CESTAT had already held (order dated 28.10.2021) that the petitioner's identical services were not intermediary services and qualified as export — a position also endorsed by the Bombay High Court in the petitioner's own case. Citing denial of the GST-period refund and the absence of a functional GST Tribunal, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the services rendered by the petitioner to IDP Australia qualify as “intermediary” services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017.
  2. Whether such services instead qualify as “export of services” entitling the petitioner to refund of IGST under Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, an intermediary must arrange or facilitate supply between two or more other persons; a person supplying services on his own account is expressly excluded.
  • The petitioner supplies services to IDP Australia alone, on a principal-to-principal basis, with no contractual privity with foreign universities or students, and IDP Australia retains final authority over admissions.
  • CESTAT's order dated 28.10.2021 in the petitioner's own case, examining an identical arrangement, held the petitioner was not an intermediary; CBIC's Circular dated 20.09.2021 confirms the intermediary definition is unchanged between the service-tax and GST regimes.
  • The Bombay High Court, in the petitioner's own case, had already applied the CESTAT ratio to the GST period and directed refund; other State jurisdictions have also treated the petitioner as an exporter.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Clause 1.3(b) of the agreement dated 01.07.2017 states that fees are inclusive of any GST/VAT payable in India, showing the petitioner was not entitled to treat the supply as zero-rated under Section 16(3)(b).

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court rejected the Department's reliance on the fee-inclusivity clause, holding that entitlement to IGST refund turns on whether the petitioner is an “intermediary,” not on how fees are described in the contract.
  • The services were rendered only to IDP Australia; not more than two parties were involved, whereas an “intermediary” relationship requires three parties — the petitioner therefore could not be treated as an intermediary.
  • The impugned orders erred in treating the petitioner as having facilitated or arranged placement services between the foreign universities, IDP Australia and students, when the petitioner had no contractual role with either the universities or the students.
  • Following the Bombay High Court's judgment in the petitioner's own case (2025 (5) TMI 729) and the CESTAT order dated 28.10.2021, the Court held the petitioner is not an “intermediary” and is entitled to export status and consequent IGST refund.
  • Both writ petitions were allowed; the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim with applicable interest within four weeks.

Important Clarification

  • Determining “intermediary” status requires identifying whether the arrangement genuinely involves three parties (the intermediary plus two principals) or is merely a bipartite, principal-to-principal service arrangement between two entities.
  • A CESTAT ruling under the erstwhile service tax regime on an identical scope of services remains persuasive under GST where CBIC's own circular confirms no material change in the statutory definition of “intermediary.”
  • Contractual language on tax inclusivity in pricing cannot override the statutory test for zero-rated export supply under Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act.

Sections Involved

  • Section 2(13), IGST Act, 2017 — defines “intermediary” as a broker/agent facilitating supply between two or more persons, excluding one who supplies on his own account.
  • Section 2(6), IGST Act, 2017 — defines “export of services.”
  • Section 16(3)(b), IGST Act, 2017 — governs refund of IGST paid on zero-rated supply.

Decision – In Favour of

Assessee. The Court held the petitioner is not an “intermediary” and is entitled to treat its services as export, directing refund of IGST with applicable interest within four weeks.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9933/2024 (connected with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9967/2024)
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:35572-DB
Coram: Hon'ble Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Maneesh Sharma
Date of Judgment: 04.09.2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.