The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax (DGST) against Global Opportunities Private Limited, by upholding the company’s entitlement to a Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund for services rendered to foreign universities.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain held that Global Opportunities’ activities — providing educational consultancy to Indian students seeking admissions in foreign universities — qualify as export of services under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017. The consultancy services cannot be classified as intermediary services, a category that is taxed differently under GST.
The respondent, Global Opportunities, a Delhi-based education consultancy, assists Indian students with overseas admissions and receives commissions from foreign educational institutions upon successful student enrollment. The DGST Department contended that the firm acts as an agent for the universities and therefore falls within the definition of “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. Consequently, it argued that the services do not constitute exports and are taxable in India.
The firm’s refund applications for the financial years 2018–19 to 2021–22, amounting to ₹74.29 lakh, were initially rejected on the grounds that the services were intermediary in nature and that the claims were time-barred. However, the Appellate Authority later reversed the decision, terming the consultancy’s relationship with foreign universities as a principal-to-principal relationship — making the services eligible for export refunds.
The High Court, affirming the Appellate Authority’s findings, relied on a series of landmark judgments including Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Addl. Commissioner CGST (2023) and K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2025), which were also upheld by the Supreme Court.
The court emphasized that the consultancy provides services on its own account and not as an agent arranging services between two parties. Therefore, the firm’s income — commissions received in foreign exchange from universities abroad — meets all the conditions of “export of services” under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act.
The Court noted, “the Respondent is engaged by foreign universities for consultancy services and upon admission of students, raises invoices and receives payment in foreign currency. Such services, though beneficial to the foreign universities, cannot be classified as intermediary services.”
The court drew parallels with similar decisions by the Bombay High Court and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which have consistently held that education consultants providing services to foreign institutions are not intermediaries.
The Court also highlighted the GST Council’s 56th Meeting, where it was recommended that Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act — which earlier deemed the place of supply for intermediary services as the supplier’s location in India — be omitted to promote service exports. This, the Court noted, eliminates ambiguity around the tax treatment of intermediary transactions.
Dismissing the DGST’s petition, the Court directed that Global Opportunities’ refund be processed along with statutory interest within two months.
Case Details
Case Title: Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax DGST Delhi Versus Global Opportunities Private Limited
Case No.: W.P.(C) 10189/2025 & CM APPL. 42299/2025
Date: 25/09/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Sameer Vashisht, SSC
Counsel For Respondent: Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv
