IGST Refund Intermediary – HC Allows Export Service Refund

Case Details: IDP Education India Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India - [2025] 174 taxmann.com 580 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Firdosh P. Pooniwalla & B.P. Colabawalla, JJ.
• Prasad Paranjape & Bhavya Varma, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Vijay H. Kantharia & Mamta Omle, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a subsidiary of IDP Australia, was engaged in providing back-end support services exclusively to its foreign holding company in connection with Indian students seeking admission to foreign universities. As per the commercial understanding, IDP Australia shared with the petitioner a fixed percentage of the fees it received from foreign universities. The petitioner neither had any contractual relationship with the foreign universities nor with the students, and did not raise any invoice or receive any direct consideration from either party.

For the period from March 2019 to March 2021, the petitioner treated the services rendered to IDP Australia as export of services and filed a claim for refund of IGST paid thereon under Section 54 of the CGST Act read with the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017. The Revenue rejected the refund claim on the ground that the petitioner qualified as an ‘intermediary’ under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act alleging that the petitioner facilitated the supply of services between Indian students and foreign universities. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court challenging the classification as intermediary and the consequent denial of refund.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the petitioner was not an intermediary within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act and was therefore eligible for refund of IGST paid on export of services. The Court observed that the petitioner provided services solely to IDP Australia and did not act as a facilitator between two other persons. It was emphasised that the petitioner had no contractual obligation towards the foreign universities or the students, did not act on their behalf, and received no consideration from them.

The Court placed reliance on a categorical finding previously rendered by the CESTAT in the petitioner’s own case under identical facts, where it was conclusively held that the petitioner did not qualify as an intermediary. Finding no reason to depart from this settled position, the Court concluded that the petitioner had fulfilled all conditions necessary to constitute an export of service and was thus entitled to refund. Accordingly, the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the refund claim in accordance with law.