2022 (2) TMI 711 - AAR - GST

Exemption from GST - paid educational content, which is used by health care professionals or students to fulfill a mandatory demand by their professional body or institute - fee for the portfolio management - HELD THAT - The applicant is providing services to doctors to maintain the professional standards as required by law and guidelines issued by the Medical Council. The consideration charged by the applicant is also verified and found that the applicant is charging ₹ 999-00 per year plus 15% of the content charges if chargeable plus whatever the fee the Medical Council charges - the transactions reveal that the recipient of services is health care professionals and it is not for obtaining a degree as prescribed by law. The services provided by the applicant is not covered under Entry No. 74 of the Notification 2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as it is not a health care service nor the applicant is a clinical establishment. The services provided is also not covered under the Entry No. 66 of the said Notification, as it is not an educational institution as per the definition given to it in clause (y) of paragraph 2 of the said Notification. As far as the services of the applicant are concerned, the applicant claims that the professional bodies can track the progress of their members in their online portfolio and there would be no need to check the paper certificates. The health care professionals would no longer required to submit the certifications and await approval of the professional bodies. The portfolios are secure and are accessible only after permissions are given by the members to align with privacy regulations - it is clear that the applicant is collecting the charges on behalf of the professional bodies and are paying it to them. The amounts are paid by the health care professionals. It is clear that the applicant is only acting as a liaison agent between the health care professionals on one side and their professional organisations and content providers on the other side and are charging their charges in addition to the content charges and fees of the professional bodies. The applicant per se does not provide any education to the professionals - the services provided by the applicant to the doctors and other health care professionals is not covered under any exemptions and hence is taxable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of the application for Advance Ruling
2. Tax exemption on paid educational content for health care professionals
3. Tax exemption on fee for portfolio management services

Admissibility of the application for Advance Ruling:
The application filed by M/s. CMEPEDIA was deemed admissible under Section 97(2)(e) of the CGST Act 2017 as it pertained to determining the liability to pay tax on goods or services.

Tax exemption on paid educational content for health care professionals:
The applicant sought a ruling on whether educational content used by health care professionals to fulfill mandatory requirements was tax-exempt. The Authority found that the services provided by the applicant were not covered under any exemptions. The consideration charged by the applicant was analyzed, revealing that the services were not akin to health care services or educational institutions as defined in relevant notifications. The applicant's role was determined to be that of a liaison agent between health care professionals and professional bodies, collecting charges on behalf of the bodies. As the services did not fall under any exemptions, they were deemed taxable.

Tax exemption on fee for portfolio management services:
The applicant also sought clarity on whether the fee charged for portfolio management services was tax-exempt. The Authority ruled that the fee collected for portfolio management was not exempt from tax under the relevant GST Acts. The applicant's role was highlighted as facilitating interactions between health care professionals and professional bodies, ensuring transparency in fee collection and progress tracking. The services provided were deemed taxable as they did not qualify for any exemptions.

The ruling concluded that both the paid educational content for health care professionals and the fee for portfolio management services were not exempt from tax under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act or Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act. The decision was based on the analysis of the applicant's services, their role as a liaison agent, and the absence of specific exemptions applicable to the provided services.