GST Refund for Visa & Education Consultants: Export of Services, Not Intermediary — Supreme Court Ruling
If you are a visa consultant or education consultant in India who paid GST on commissions received from foreign universities, you may be entitled to a full GST refund. The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in KC Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., settling the legal position that such services constitute export of services, not intermediary services. This article explains the law, the refund process, and how to respond to departmental objections.
Visa Consultants in India: Cross-Border Education Services and GST Uncertainty
Every year, thousands of Indian students pursue higher education overseas, and behind each successful admission is a network of student visa and education consultants working closely with foreign universities. These consultants provide end-to-end professional services—ranging from student counselling and application assistance to admission coordination and compliance support—for which they are compensated directly by overseas universities in foreign currency.
Despite operating in a cross-border environment, such service providers have long faced uncertainty under GST regarding the classification and taxability of their services.
For several years after the introduction of GST in July 2017, the tax treatment of student visas and education consultancy services remained contentious. Tax authorities consistently viewed such services as “intermediary services” under Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, resulting in the place of supply being treated as India, irrespective of the fact that foreign universities were the recipients and consideration was received in foreign currency. Based on this prevailing interpretation, consultants across India discharged GST—either as CGST and SGST or, in some cases, IGST—out of their own pocket, treating their services as taxable domestic supplies. This position continued for several years and was widely followed by the industry, not due to tax avoidance, but due to the absence of judicial clarity and the fear of departmental action.
The long-standing departmental view did not go unchallenged. From 2021 onwards, several education and visa consultancy firms began questioning the classification of their services as “intermediary services” before various High Courts. These challenges focused on the true nature of the contractual relationship between consultants and foreign universities, highlighting that consultants were not arranging or facilitating the supply of services between two parties, but were providing independent, principal-to-principal professional services, such as student outreach, counselling, screening, and admission support. Gradually, High Courts began to recognise this distinction and held that such services do not fall within the scope of intermediary services under Section 13(8)(b). As a result, the place of supply was required to be determined under Section 13(2) of the IGST Act, i.e., the location of the recipient, which in these cases was outside India—thereby satisfying all conditions of export of services.
What the High Courts highlighted: substance over labels
When the issue reached various High Courts, the focus shifted from labels used by the department to the actual substance of the transaction. The courts closely examined the contractual arrangements between education consultants and foreign universities and highlighted several critical aspects. First, the High Courts noted that education and visa consultants were not acting as agents between two parties, but were providing independent and comprehensive professional services to foreign universities. These services included student outreach, counselling, screening, application assistance, and coordination—activities carried out on their own account and not merely to arrange or facilitate a supply between the student and the university.
The courts further observed that the consultants did not have the authority to bind either party, did not negotiate terms between students and universities, and were remunerated directly by foreign universities based on agreed commercial terms. On this basis, the High Courts categorically held that such consultants do not satisfy the statutory definition of “intermediary” under GST law. Once this finding was recorded, Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act was held to be inapplicable, and the place of supply was required to be determined under Section 13(2)—that is, the location of the recipient of service, which was outside India.
What the Supreme Court said: finality to the legal position
The Department challenged these High Court rulings before the Supreme Court. However, the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Department were dismissed, and no stay or contrary view was taken. By refusing to interfere with the High Court judgments, the Supreme Court allowed the findings to attain finality. In legal terms, this means that the interpretation adopted by the High Courts now represents the settled position of law.
The dismissal of the Department’s challenge is significant because it removes all lingering ambiguity. The classification of education and visa consultancy services as non-intermediary services, and consequently as export of services, is no longer open to routine departmental dispute. Authorities are bound to follow this interpretation unless the law itself is amended.
The practical impact: from tax liability to refund entitlement
This judicial clarity has far-reaching consequences for the industry. Services that were previously treated as taxable domestic supplies are now conclusively recognised as exports of services and as zero-rated supplies. As a direct consequence, the GST paid earlier by consultants—whether as CGST and SGST or as IGST—loses its legal basis. Since the tax burden was borne by the consultants themselves and not passed on to foreign universities, the tax becomes refundable under the combined reading of Sections 54 and 77 of the CGST (or SGST) Act.
More importantly, this is not a case of correcting a mistake or an excess payment, but a refund arising from a subsequent and authoritative judicial determination of the law. The Supreme Court’s finality ensures that refund claims based on this position are not discretionary or goodwill-based, but a statutory right, subject only to procedural compliance and documentation.
Why refund claims are increasing — and where most consultants are going wrong
With the legal position now conclusively settled, a growing number of visa and education consultants are beginning to realise that GST paid in earlier years may be legally refundable. This awareness has naturally triggered a surge in refund claims across the country. However, in practice, many of these claims are either getting stuck, delayed, or rejected, not because the refund is inadmissible, but because they are being filed incorrectly. Common errors include selecting the wrong refund category, mischaracterising the refund as an “excess payment of tax,” failing to properly explain the change in legal position, or submitting applications without a structured legal narrative and supporting judicial references. In several cases, consultants rely on informal advice or attempt a self-filing approach, only to face deficiency memos or adverse orders that could have been avoided. These refunds are not routine or mechanical; they require a careful alignment of facts, law, documentation, and presentation. This is precisely where professional handling makes the difference between a refund that is merely eligible and a refund that is actually sanctioned.
In the current environment, eligibility alone does not secure a refund—strategy does.
Do you know who should take action now?
If you are a student visa consultant or education consultant who:
Received commission from foreign universities
Paid GST from your own pocket
Did not charge GST to overseas clients
Filed returns under a bona fide understanding of law
Are now unsure whether or how to claim a refund
📋 Request a Free Eligibility Review
Fill in your details below. Haard Shah will personally review your case and respond within 1 working day — no obligation, completely confidential.A note for Chartered Accountants advising visa & education consultants
Chartered Accountants advising student visa and education consultants are increasingly encountering refund queries arising from the recent judicial clarity on the export of services. While the eligibility appears straightforward on paper, the practical implementation of these refunds involves nuanced legal considerations, especially regarding classification, place of supply, refund category selection, limitations, and unjust enrichment.
These refunds are not routine GST filings. They are fact-intensive and judgment-driven, and a minor procedural misstep—such as filing under an incorrect refund category or inadequately linking the claim to judicial developments—can expose the client to prolonged correspondence, rejections, or appeals. Many practitioners understandably prefer not to experiment in this evolving space.
We regularly assist in back-end legal support for such cases, including:
Independent refund eligibility review
Assisting in structuring the correct refund approach
Drafting legally robust refund applications and replies
Supporting matters at the objection, adjudication, or appeal stage
Strong support for our Professional Brothers.
This support is provided without disturbing the client-CA relationship, allowing CAs to continue as the primary advisor while ensuring the refund claim is handled with the required legal depth by keeping you as one point of contact for anything and everything.
WhatsApp me Now.For Chartered Accountants
If you have clients in the visa, education, or overseas recruitment space who have paid GST on commissions received from foreign universities, a pre-filing legal review can significantly improve outcomes and reduce future litigation.
I am happy to collaborate on a case-to-case basis, either for:
Strategy review
Drafting support
Objection / appeal handling
📩 Feel free to connect for a confidential discussion before advising your client to file.
When GST refunds arise from court rulings, collaboration works better than experimentation.
About us :
Our firm is a practising indirect tax professional specialising in GST refunds, export of services, and classification disputes. We have been closely involved in advising on refund claims triggered by recent High Court and Supreme Court rulings, particularly in the education and visa consultancy sector. Our approach focuses on getting the legal framing right before filing, helping clients and Chartered Accountants avoid avoidable objections, delays, and litigation. We frequently work in coordination with existing advisors, offering back-end legal support where specialised intervention is required.
March 2026 :Latest update on different queries I have received from the peers and SCN replied:
Why such services qualify as export of services, how refund should be claimed, and why limitation objections often fail
Over the last few years, one recurring GST controversy has affected overseas education consultants, student recruitment agencies, visa counsellors, and admission support businesses operating in India. These businesses typically receive commission or service fees from foreign universities or overseas education entities for identifying, counselling, screening, and referring Indian students. For a long time, many taxpayers paid GST on such receipts because the department treated these services as intermediary services, applied Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, and treated the place of supply as India.
That position has now materially changed. Judicial decisions, read with CBIC clarifications, have established that where the Indian entity provides services on principal to principal basis, receives consideration from the foreign entity, and supplies services on its own account, such services do not fall within the definition of “intermediary.” In such cases, the place of supply is governed by Section 13(2), i.e. the location of the recipient outside India, and the transaction qualifies as export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, resulting in a zero rated supply under Section 16.
This article explains the issue in detail, the current legal position, the refund route, the usual objections raised by officers, and the correct response strategy.
1. The commercial model
In a typical case, an Indian consultant assists foreign universities or foreign education platforms in student recruitment. The services may include counselling, identifying potential students, explaining programs, assisting with applications, coordinating documents, and supporting admissions or visa formalities. The consideration is often described as commission, but economically it is consideration for services rendered to the overseas principal.
The central GST question is simple:
Is the Indian entity merely arranging a supply between the foreign university and the student, or is it itself supplying recruitment and counselling services to the foreign entity on its own account?
That distinction determines everything.
2. The statutory framework
Section 2(6) of the IGST Act defines “export of services.” One of the essential conditions is that the place of supply must be outside India. If that condition is satisfied, and the other conditions are also fulfilled, the service qualifies as export.
Section 13(2) lays down the default rule for place of supply where either the supplier or recipient is outside India: the place of supply is the location of the recipient. However, Section 13(8)(b) carves out a special rule for intermediary services, where the place of supply becomes the location of the supplier, i.e. India.
Thus, the real controversy is whether such student recruitment and counselling services are “intermediary services” within Section 2(13), or independent principal to principal services governed by Section 13(2).
3. What Circular 159 clarified
CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST is foundational. It clarified the scope of intermediary and laid down the basic tests:
there must be a minimum of three parties,
there must be two distinct supplies,
the intermediary must merely arrange or facilitate the main supply, and
a person who supplies the service on his own account is excluded from intermediary.
The circular also clarifies that a person supplying the main service on principal to principal basis is not an intermediary, and that subcontracting is not intermediary merely because the subcontractor interacts with the end customer.
This clarification is extremely important in education consultancy cases. If the Indian entity is itself supplying recruitment support, lead generation, counselling, and admissions assistance to the foreign university or foreign education platform, then the Indian entity is not merely arranging someone else’s supply; it is rendering a service on its own account.
4. What Circular 230 added
Circular No. 230/24/2024-GST, though issued in the context of advertising services, is conceptually powerful and directly supports the same legal logic. It distinguishes between:
a principal to principal service model, where the Indian supplier provides a bundled service to the foreign client on its own account, and
a mere facilitation model, where the Indian party acts only as an agent or arranger between two principals.
The circular specifically clarifies that where the Indian supplier provides services on its own account to the foreign client, Section 13(8)(b) does not apply, and the place of supply must be determined under Section 13(2), i.e. the foreign client’s location.
That reasoning directly strengthens the overseas education and student recruitment sector.
5. The judicial turning point
The decisive development came from the courts.
The Bombay High Court in KC Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India held that services provided to foreign universities in recommending students constituted export of services and that the taxpayer was eligible for refund of GST paid on such consideration. The Court read Section 2(6), Section 2(93), Section 13(2), and Section 2(13) harmoniously and rejected a piecemeal approach.
The legal position became even stronger when the department’s SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. KC Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court dismissal confirmed the Bombay High Court view and effectively gave finality to the refund entitlement in such fact situations.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in IDP Education India Pvt. Ltd. dealt with a similar model where support services were rendered on principal to principal basis and the department attempted to treat them as intermediary. The case itself records that the petitioner had classified the services as export and the dispute arose from the department’s contrary view.
The Delhi High Court in Global Opportunities Pvt. Ltd. also framed the exact controversy: whether such services to foreign educational institutions qualify as export of services and whether the Indian entity can be treated as an intermediary.
Taken together, these decisions have substantially crystallized the law.
6. Why these services are generally not intermediary
The most common departmental argument is that the Indian consultant facilitates admission between the student and the university and therefore is an intermediary. That approach is legally superficial.
The correct test is not whether the consultant earns “commission.” The correct test is whether the consultant is:
acting as a broker or agent,
arranging a supply between two other principals, and
not supplying the service on its own account.
Where the contract is with the foreign university or foreign education platform, the consideration is payable by that foreign entity, the Indian consultant invoices that foreign entity, and the consultant has no power to bind the university as agent, the service is ordinarily supplied to the foreign entity on own account. In such a case, the student may be the beneficiary or end user of the process, but the recipient under Section 2(93) remains the person liable to pay consideration. That was the core reasoning accepted in KC Overseas.
7. Why refund becomes admissible
Once the supply is correctly classified as export of services:
Section 2(6) is satisfied,
The supply becomes zero-rated under Section 16, and
any GST earlier paid on such supply becomes refundable under Section 54.
This is why many taxpayers who had earlier paid CGST and SGST or IGST on such receipts are now seeking refunds.
The correct refund category on the portal has been a practical issue. In many cases, taxpayers have used the “Any Other” category because the refund arises out of the subsequent crystallisation of the correct legal character of the supply rather than a simple routine category like excess balance or LUT refund. That does not defeat substantive eligibility, so long as there is no duplicate claim for the same period and amount and all supporting records are on file. The very structure of RFD-08 notices in such cases shows that the controversy is a legal characterisation, not portal mechanics.
8. The limitation objection and why it often fails
A major resistance point at the adjudication stage is limitation. Officers frequently argue that the refund claim is time-barred under Section 54 after more than two years.
That objection is not sustainable here.
The Gujarat High Court in Comsol Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat held that where money is collected without authority of law, such amount is not to be treated as tax under Section 54 in the ordinary sense, and technical limitation cannot be used to defeat refund. The Court expressly observed that amounts collected without authority of law are not covered by Section 54 in the same manner and that the principles of mistake of law become relevant.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nspira Management Services Pvt. Ltd. held that when GST was collected on exempt renting of residential dwellings, such collection was without authority of law and limitation for refund claims was inapplicable; the refund applications had to be considered on merits without examining limitation.
The Supreme Court in Salonah Tea Company Ltd. held that the State has no right to retain monies realised without authority of law and that the limitation period for money paid under mistake runs from the date when the mistake becomes known.
The Supreme Court in Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills further held that where duty has been levied without authority of law, the general law applies, and the starting point is when the mistake or error comes to light.
Finally, M.A. Murthy is important for the broader jurisprudential point: unless the Court expressly makes its ruling prospective, the law it declares is treated as the law from inception.
Therefore, where a refund arises because the legal position has now been settled that the service is export and not intermediary, the taxpayer has a strong basis to argue that the right to refund crystallised only upon clarification of the correct legal position, and limitation cannot be invoked to legitimise unlawful retention of tax.
9. Binding nature of precedent
Officers sometimes argue that one High Court’s decision is not binding in another State. That argument is often overstated and administratively unsafe.
The Supreme Court in East India Commercial Co. Ltd. held that authorities under a statute are bound by the law declared by the superior courts. The Supreme Court in Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. reiterated judicial discipline and the obligation of adjudicating authorities to follow higher appellate precedents.
So long as there is no contrary jurisdictional High Court decision, officers cannot simply ignore a settled line of persuasive High Court rulings, especially after dismissal of the department’s SLP in KC Overseas.
10. Practical documentation for refund success
A strong refund claim should include:
agreement with the foreign university or foreign entity,
clauses showing principal to principal relationship,
invoice copies,
FIRC or inward remittance proof,
GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B disclosures,
mapping of receipts and tax paid,
undertaking against duplicate claim if the refund is under “Any Other,” and
a concise but firm legal note citing the above judgments and circulars.
11. Final position
The legal landscape has now shifted in favour of the taxpayer. Where an Indian overseas education consultant or student recruitment entity supplies services to a foreign university or foreign education business on a principal-to-principal basis and receives foreign currency consideration, the service ordinarily qualifies as an export of services and not as intermediary services. Refund of GST earlier paid on such transactions is therefore legally sustainable.
The real battle now is not on first principles but on documentation, presentation, and timely assertion of rights. Taxpayers who present the contractual model correctly, support the claim with remittance evidence, and respond firmly to limitation objections have a strong case for refund.