GST on Student Recruitment Services for Overseas Universities: Kerala AAR Ruling in the Case of Global Educational Consultants

Background and Context

A significant advance ruling has emerged from the Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) concerning the GST treatment of services rendered by Indian education consultants who recruit students on behalf of foreign universities. The ruling addresses two critical questions that affect a large segment of education intermediaries operating in India: whether such services qualify as export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017, and whether they constitute intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017.

The applicant, Global Educational Consultants, is a GST-registered entity in Kerala engaged in facilitating student admissions to overseas educational institutions. The ruling has far-reaching implications for similarly placed entities across India, particularly in view of the legislative amendment that omitted Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act with effect from 30.03.2026.

Nature of the Applicant's Activities

The applicant operates under formal agreements executed with foreign universities to carry out student recruitment and enrolment facilitation activities in India. The specific functions performed by the applicant under these arrangements include:

  • Promoting the university and its academic programmes within India
  • Distributing official brochures, programme information, and other university-supplied materials to prospective students
  • Providing guidance on programme-specific admission requirements as well as student visa application procedures
  • Assisting prospective students with application documentation and the entry process
  • Collecting completed applications and forwarding them directly to the university for evaluation
  • Communicating admission decisions and pre-departure orientation details to selected candidates

The commission received by the applicant is paid directly by the foreign university in convertible foreign exchange. Crucially, this commission is not linked merely to the recruitment activity but is contingent upon:

  1. Successful initial enrolment of the student
  2. Receipt of the prescribed tuition fees by the university
  3. Continuation of the student's enrolment beyond the census date

The Applicant's Contentions

The applicant advanced the position that its services constitute independent supplies made on a principal-to-principal basis directly to the foreign universities, rather than intermediary services. The core arguments presented were:

  • The applicant directly supplies recruitment and consultancy services to foreign universities and raises invoices on such universities for the consideration payable
  • The services are not in the nature of arranging or facilitating the supply of educational services between universities and students
  • All five conditions prescribed under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 for classification as export of services are satisfied, namely: (i) supplier located in India; (ii) recipient located outside India; (iii) place of supply outside India; (iv) consideration received in convertible foreign exchange; and (v) supplier and recipient are not establishments of a distinct person under Explanation 1 to Section 8

The applicant relied on the following judicial precedents in support of its position:

  • K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — wherein the Bombay High Court held that education consultants' services did not constitute intermediary services
  • Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST — wherein the Delhi High Court held that services independently supplied on one's own account to overseas entities cannot be treated as intermediary services
  • Medway Educational Consultant Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST — wherein student-recruitment consultancy services were held to constitute export of services

Jurisdictional Officer's View