Decided 14 October 2026. The Principal Bench of GSTAT, headed by the President, has held that services provided by Navitas Eduservices to its foreign group are an export of services under section 2(6) of the IGST Act and not intermediary services. Refunds of unutilised ITC of about ₹1.41 crore across five periods were ordered with interest. The Tribunal also held that a first appellate authority cannot "annul and ask to reconsider", because that is a remand barred by section 107(11).
Case at a glance
| Case | Navitas Eduservices Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, South Delhi (with cross appeal) |
| Forum | GSTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, Division Bench Court No. 1 (Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, President, and Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Member (Technical)) |
| Appeals | APL/23, 33, 37, 38, 89/PB/2026 (taxpayer) and APL/13/PB/2026 (department) |
| Date of order | 14 October 2026 |
| Refunds allowed | ₹50,77,028; ₹49,64,984; ₹32,62,600; ₹4,24,248; ₹3,80,506 |
| Key provisions | Sections 2(6) and 2(13) IGST Act; Section 54; Section 107(11); Section 113(1) CGST Act |
| Result | Taxpayer appeals allowed with interest; department appeal remanded to first appellate authority |
Facts of the case
Navitas India provides education-related support services to its overseas group and claimed refunds of unutilised ITC on export of services for periods from January 2018 to March 2023.
The refunds were rejected by treating Navitas as an "intermediary", whose place of supply would be in India. In one period the first appellate authority annulled the rejection and asked the proper officer to reconsider in light of Delhi High Court orders; the department appealed against that order.
Issue before the Tribunal
Are the services export of services or intermediary services? And can the first appellate authority annul an order and direct the original authority to reconsider it?
What the Tribunal held
- Following the Delhi High Court in Global Opportunities (P) Ltd. and the Bombay High Court in KC Overseas Education (P) Ltd., the services are export of services and do not fall within the definition of intermediary.
- Advance Rulings relied on by the department were not followed: AARs are not courts of record, and High Court judgments prevail.
- Refunds were ordered with interest at 6% and 9% as applicable, starting 60 days after each refund application.
- Under section 107(11), the first appellate authority may confirm, modify or annul an order but cannot send it back to the adjudicating authority. "Annulling and asking to reconsider" is a disguised remand and is not permitted.
- Only the Tribunal has power to remand under section 113(1). It remanded the department's appeal to the first appellate authority for decision on merits within six weeks.
Practical takeaways for taxpayers
- Indian entities providing back-office, recruitment or education support services to foreign group companies on their own account should review rejected export refunds in light of this ruling.
- If a first appellate authority remands your matter to the adjudicating authority, challenge it under section 107(11).
- Claim interest from the 60th day after the refund application, not from the date of the Tribunal's order.
Frequently asked questions
Who is an intermediary under GST?
Under section 2(13) of the IGST Act, a broker or agent who arranges or facilitates supplies between two or more persons, excluding a person who supplies on its own account.
Can the first appellate authority remand a GST case?
No. Section 107(11) bars it from referring the case back to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal can remand under section 113(1).
Facing a similar GST dispute?
GST Folio prepares replies to show cause notices, appeals before the Appellate Authority and GSTAT, refund claims and ITC reconciliations for businesses across India. Call or WhatsApp +91 80513 31315 or email gstfolio@zohomail.in.
This summary is based on the order of the GST Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. APL/23, 33, 37, 38, 89 and 13/PB/2026. It is general information, not legal advice; the outcome of any case depends on its own facts and the full text of the order.