Recently, in the case of Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, DGST Delhi v. Global Opportunities Pvt. Ltd. [SLP Appeal (C) No. 2752 of 2026, decided on 27-01-2026], the Supreme Court of India dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld a landmark judgment by the Delhi High Court. The ruling confirms that educational consultancy services provided to foreign universities on a principal-to-principal basis qualify as an “export of services” and cannot be classified as “intermediary services”.

1. Background & Departmental Treatment The case involved Global Opportunities Pvt. Ltd., a Delhi-based consultancy that counsels Indian students seeking admission to Foreign Educational Institutions (FEI). Under its agreements with these universities, the consultant recommends students and, upon successful admission, receives consideration in the form of a commission. This commission is billed via invoices to the foreign institutions and received in convertible foreign exchange.

The GST Department rejected the consultant’s refund claims for the period 2018-19 to 2021-22, contending that the consultant acted as an “intermediary” or agent. The Revenue argued that as an agent, the “place of supply” was the location of the supplier (India), thereby making the commissions taxable under domestic GST laws.

III. First Appellate reversed the Department’s decision and allowed the refund.

1. High Court Decision & Supreme Court Affirmation: The Delhi High Court upheld the Appellate Authority’s findings, stating that the Department’s classification was “fundamentally flawed”. The High Court ruled that the consultant provided services on its own account and was entitled to a full refund of GST along with statutory interest.

The Department then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating it was “not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment” of the High Court, though it extended the timeline for the Department to issue the refund by two months.

1. Key Observations & Findings The core finding in this case is that Global Opportunities was providing consultancy services on its own account and was not acting as an agent on behalf of the foreign institutions. Because the consultant did not arrange or facilitate a third-party supply but provided the main service directly to the university, the relationship remained principal-to-principal.

Conclusion: This judgment provides much-needed clarity for the educational consultancy industry, confirming that consultants are principal service providers, not mere agents. Consequently, commissions earned from foreign universities in foreign exchange are zero-rated exports. Consultants who have faced refund rejections or have previously paid GST on such commissions should now seek legal recourse to secure their refunds.