Admission Solutions By TC Global To Foreign Universities Not 'Intermediary Service': Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Order

In a judgment dated November 28, 2025, the Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar affirmed CESTAT Delhi order that held Respondent not liable to service tax as an 'intermediary' in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. On the aspect that activities were promotional or marketing and not arranging admissions as 'agent' the High Court explained how a consistent legal position had been set by the decisions of Global Opportunities, Ernst &Young Limited, K.C. Overseas wherein Supreme Court has dismissed the challenge by Department.

Therefore, the High Court opined that “41. There is no substantial question of law that arises in the present case”

Respondent entered into at least 244 agreements with foreign universities from across the world, such as University of Technology, Sydney, Brunel University of London and American University of Barbados.

The Service Tax Department sought to fasten service tax liability to the tune of about Rs. 15.58 crore with interest & penalties on the Respondent for commission received from foreign universities for student recruitment services. The Department denied exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST ("Auxiliary Education Services‟) on the premise that student counselling was inseparable from the main service i.e. "Students Recruitment Service‟. It was alleged that Respondent was providing these services like an agent as an "Intermediary‟ in terms of rule to 2(f) of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 (POPS). A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued which stated that services being rendered by the Respondent would not constitute export of services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as the place of provision of services was in India.

The CESTAT held that Rule 9 of POPS was wrongly invoked by applying the analogy of 'who has received the service' and 'who is responsible for the service' as enumerated in Verizon Communication India. It was clarified that service recipient was foreign universities located outside India for which payment was received in convertible foreign exchange. Further, the CESTAT observed that all the conditions under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for 'Export of Services' were satisfied, as

• the foreign universities were located outside India
• the payment was received in convertible foreign exchange
• the place of provision of service was outside India.

The High Court juxtaposed definition of 'Intermediary' as provided in Rule 2(f) of the POPS rules which is pari materia to Section 2(13) of the IGST Act and read it together with Section 13(2) and Section 13(8)of the IGST Act stipulating the place of provision of intermediary services shall be 'location of the service provider'. It was thus concluded that Foreign Consultancy Service rendered by Respondent was outside the taxable territory.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeals by the Department.

Case Name: Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Delhi vs. TC Global India Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: SERTA20/2025

For Appellant: SSC Shubham Tyagi

For Respondent: Advocates Gaurav Gupta, Rahul Agarwal, Saurabh Dahiya

Clickhere to read the judgment.

Clickhere to read the CESTAT Delhi order.