Admission Support Services By TC Global To Foreign Universities Are Export Of Service, Not Intermediary; Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Order
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar, by judgment dated November 28, 2025, held that TC Global, operating an app-based platform that provides foreign universities with admission-support services such as promotion, advertising, roadshows, fairs and counselling for consideration in foreign exchange, supplies export of services rather than intermediary services. Affirming the CESTAT Delhi decision, the Court concluded that the respondent is not liable to service tax as an intermediary under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. The Bench treated TC Global’s activities as promotional and marketing, not the arranging of admissions as an agent, consistent with the approach in Global Opportunities, Ernst & Young Limited and K.C. Overseas, where departmental challenges were dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The appeal was filed by the revenue authority under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the order dated 13 December 2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the taxpayer’s appeal after holding that the services provided to foreign educational institutions did not qualify as intermediary services under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 and constituted export of services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Tribunal also held the Show Cause Notice dated 17 December 2015 to be time-barred.
The respondent was engaged in providing support services to foreign universities, including arranging and facilitating student recruitment, supplying information to prospective students, assisting with applications, liaising with foreign institutions, and supporting fee payments, visa processes and accommodation. The department alleged that these activities amounted to intermediary services and raised a demand of service tax, interest, and penalties.
The adjudicating authority concluded that the respondent satisfied the elements of Rule 2(f) and confirmed the demand. The Tribunal examined agreements with foreign universities, the nature of services rendered, and statutory provisions including Rule 9(c) of the POPS Rules and Rule 6A. It reversed the adjudicating authority’s findings and held that the services constituted export.
The Court recorded that the Tribunal had held that “the Respondent is not an ‘intermediary’ in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012” and that the services “constitute export of services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.” The Court noted that the Show Cause Notice had been found barred by limitation. It examined the statutory definition under Rule 2(f), stating that it “means a broker, an agent or any other person… who arranges or facilitates a provision of a service… but does not include a person who provides the main service on his account.”
The Court referred to Rule 6A and recorded that it treats a service as export when conditions including the location of the service provider, location of the recipient outside India, and receipt of consideration in foreign exchange are met. It also noted Rule 9(c), which provides that the place of provision for intermediary services is the location of the service provider.
The Court referred to its prior decision in Global Opportunities, noting that similar issues had been examined under the IGST Act. It stated that in Ernst & Young Ltd., the Court had held “it is obvious that a person who supplies the goods or services is not an intermediary.” The Court quoted the finding that “a person who provides services… is not an intermediary.” It also noted the Bombay High Court’s view in K.C. Overseas and quoted the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP, observing that the Supreme Court “reiterated its decisions in Commissioner of Service Tax v. Vodafone India Ltd.”
The Court also quoted the CESTAT Mumbai’s finding in Krishna Consultancy that “the appellant is providing service to universities located in foreign countries… therefore… the services… are export of services.” It noted that similar reasoning was adopted in Verizon Communication, including the principle that “the ‘recipient’ of the service is determined by the contract… and who is responsible for the payment.” The Court recorded the principle: “Your customer’s customer is not your customer.”
The Court referred to the GST Council’s recommendation in its 56th meeting, noting that the omission of Section 13(8)(b) clarified the place of supply for intermediary services. It concluded that these precedents consistently held that services of the nature provided by the respondent were not intermediary services.
The Court recorded that “the impugned order does not warrant any interference. There is no substantial question of law that arises in the present case. The present appeal is dismissed in these terms.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC, CBIC
For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Mr. Rahul Agarwal and Ms. Saurabh Dahiya, Advs.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East v. M/s T C Global India Pvt. Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10550-DB
Case Number: SERTA 20/2025 & CM APPL. 65505/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Renu Bhatnagar
