FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. The Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax (Petitioner) challenged two refund orders (GST APL‑04 dated 10 Aug 2024 and 4 Oct 2024) granting tax refunds to Global Opportunities Private Limited (Respondent) for service exports.
  2. The Respondent operates as an education consultancy, assisting Indian students with overseas admissions under agreements with foreign universities, earning commissions in foreign exchange.
  3. The Department refused refunds on grounds that:
    • The Respondent acted as an ‘intermediary’ under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, thus the services did not qualify as export of services.
    • Several refund claims were time‑barred under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. 

ISSUES INVOLVED

Issue 1: Whether the Respondent’s services qualify as export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act.
Issue 2: Whether the Respondent is to be categorised as an ‘intermediary’ under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, thereby disqualifying it from export benefit.
Issue 3: Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. 

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS (DEPARTMENT)

• The Respondent was only acting as an agent/intermediary and not supplying services directly; therefore, services do not qualify as exports for refund purposes.
• The Respondent’s agreements with foreign universities refer to it as an agent; thus, under Section 2(13), services are not export of services.
• Refund claims beyond two years from export date are barred by Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS (GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES PVT. LTD.)

• The services provided are on a principal‑to‑principal basis, not intermediary services — meriting export classification.
• Under the contracts, the university retains admission rights; the Respondent does not merely facilitate or arrange — it performs consulting services directly.
• There was no valid basis to reject refund claims; extension and reversal by Appellate Authority was justified. 

COURT’S FINDINGS & ORDER

  1. The High Court held the Appellate Authority’s orders granting refunds did not warrant interference, finding that the classification of services as exports was reasonably justified.
  2. The Court analysed statutory definitions of “export of services” (Section 2(6) IGST Act) and “intermediary” (Section 2(13) IGST Act).
  3. It observed that services involving marketing/consultancy directly rendered to foreign universities and paid in convertible foreign exchange can qualify as exports if they are not merely facilitative arrangements.
  4. The Department’s classification as intermediary was not sustainable in view of contractual realities showing direct service provision.
  5. On limitation, the Court found Appellate Authority applied law correctly in granting refunds on eligible claims.
  6. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed and refunds upheld. 

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS FROM THE JUDGMENT

Export of Services Criteria: The service supplier must be in India, recipient outside India, place of supply outside India, and payment in convertible foreign exchange.
 Intermediary vs Supplier: Mere contractual label as agent does not govern GST classification; substance of service and contractual rights determine whether a service is exportable.
 GST Refund Limitation: Section 54(1) applies but must be interpreted in light of export classification and statutory eligibility criteria.
Judicial Deference to Appellate Authority: High Court defers where Appellate Authority’s reasoning shows application of mind and statutory interpretation. 

SECTIONS INVOLVED

• Section 2(6), IGST Act (Export of Services)
• Section 2(13), IGST Act (Intermediary)
• Section 13(8), IGST Act (Place of Supply of Services)
• Section 54(1), CGST Act (Refund Limitation)
• Articles 226 & 227, Constitution of India (Writ Jurisdiction)

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS25092025CW101892025_185703.pdf

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.