SC Dismisses SLP, Referral Services to Foreign Universities Treated as Export

Case Details: Union of India vs. KC Overseas Education (P.) Ltd. - [2025] 178 taxmann.com 185 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Mrs B.V. Nagarathna & Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
• Rupesh Kumar, Sr Adv.,  AOGurmeet Singh Makker,R, Udai Khanna, Navanjay Mahapatra, Piyush Beriwal, Rajat Vaishnaw, Mudit Bansal, Advs. and S. Dwarakanath, A.S.G. for the Petitioner
• Ayush Agarwal, Ms Neha Choudhary, Sahil Parghi, Shreyash Agrawal,  Ms Umang Motiyani, Swastik Mishra, Ms.\ Medha Sinha, Advs., Ms Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR & V. Sridharan, Sr Adv. for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, under agreements with foreign universities, was engaged in recommending students for enrollment, for which consideration was received directly from those universities in foreign currency. The petitioner submitted that these activities constituted export of services within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, since the services were provided to recipients located outside India, the consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange, and the place of supply was outside India. It was contended that in terms of Section 2(93) of the CGST Act read with Section 13(2) of the IGST Act, the recipient of service was the foreign university, which was liable to pay consideration, and the petitioner was not an intermediary within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. The petitioner, therefore, claimed entitlement to a refund of GST paid on the consideration received from such universities, and the matter was carried before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, defining ‘export of services’ must be read as an integrated whole, and that the decisive factors were that the place of supply was outside India and the recipient was the foreign university liable to pay consideration under Section 2(93) of the CGST Act. It was observed that the petitioner was not rendering services to students in India and did not fall within the definition of ‘intermediary’ under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. Consequently, it was held that the services constituted export of services and the petitioner was eligible for a refund of GST under Section 54 of the CGST Act and the Maharashtra GST Act. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier pronouncements in Commissioner of Service Tax III, Mumbai v. Vodafone India Ltd. and Commissioner, Central Excise, CGST-Delhi South Commissionerate v. Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd., dismissed the special leave petition against the High Court’s ruling.

List of Cases Reviewed

• KC Overseas Education (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2025] 178 taxmann.com 35 (Bombay) (Para 1) – SLP dismissed

List of Cases Referred to

• CST v. Vodafone India Ltd. [Civil Appeal Nos.10815-10819 of 2014, dated 6-5-2025] (para 1)
• Commissioner, Central Excise, CGST-Delhi South Commissionerate v. Blackberry India (P.) Ltd. [SLP (C) No. 25992 of 2024, dated 4-11-2024] (para 2).