9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices to be received by them but to be provided by the diagnostic centres in the appellants premises. Though the appellant herein has relied upon the fact that the health services are exempted from the Tax Net and diagnosis is included as the part of the health services, but the fact remains is that in the given arrangements/agreements with the diagnostic centres the appellant is not providing any health service. It is merely collecting money on behalf of the diagnostic centres for providing them the number of patients. Hence, the share of revenue so collected in the hands of the appellant cannot be categorized as a consideration for rendering the health service to the patients - considerations received undoubtedly is for such activities as are enumerated in the definition of the BSS. The Notification dated 20.06.2012 is also not applicable at least to the amount of consideration @ 25% of the total revenue collected by the appellant from the patients to receive diagnostic health services from the diagnostic centres using appellant s infrastructural. Management Maintenance Repair Services to the food courts (FC) in the appellant s premises - Held that:- The agreement of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are providing taxable services under the category of Maintenance, Management and Repair Service (MMC) and Business Support Service (BSS). Rent of Immovable Property Services was also alleged initially, but the said demand has been dropped, period being prior to the amendment to that effect and the Department has not gone in appeal. It was observed during the audit that the appellant has outsourced 4 diagnostic services to 3 of the diagnostic centres, namely, M/s. Bakshi Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. (CT Scan), M/s. North Health Care (MRI), M/s. Mahajan Imaging (PET-CT Scan and Nuclear Medicine). All the said diagnostic centres have installed their equipments in the premises of the appellant. It was alleged that the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax for an amount of ₹ 1,61,13,033/- as detailed in the show cause notice for rendering the above mentioned service to these diagnostic centres. The said demand has been confirmed by the order under challenge. Resultantly, the appeal in hand has been filed. 2. We have heard Mr. B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ranjan Khanna, ld. DR for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rangement of the appellant with the diagnostic centres stands. It is impressed upon that from the perusal of the respective agreement with the diagnostic centre, the arrangement is not simply of providing space but is in addition is impressed upon as for providing infrastructure even the counter for receiving payment from the patients and all the facility for the collection thereof. It is also submitted that the appellant per-se is not providing any diagnosis services to these patients, which in-fact are provided by the said diagnostic centres. Finally, justifying the order under challenge ld. DR has prayed for the appeal to be rejected. 6. After hearing both the parties our observations and considered opinion are as follows:- 7. It is apparent from record and is an admitted fact also that with three of the diagnostic centres the appellant has entered into separate agreements. The relevant extract has been mentioned in the show cause notice. The perusal thereof shows that the diagnostic centres are allowed by the appellant to install and operate their equipments in the space provided by the appellant within the Hospital premises with the condition and they shall be creating n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en both these definitions are read together, the plain reading thereof is sufficient to indicate that the scope of tax entry is basically of outsourcing nature and it does not deal with any sale or purchase of items. 9. In the present case, the appellant is providing the facilitation of customer relationship to the diagnostic centres by employing their own staff to collect the amount from the patients against the diagnostic services to be received by them but to be provided by the diagnostic centres in the appellants premises. Though the appellant herein has relied upon the fact that the health services are exempted from the Tax Net and diagnosis is included as the part of the health services, but the fact remains is that in the given arrangements/agreements with the diagnostic centres the appellant is not providing any health service. It is merely collecting money on behalf of the diagnostic centres for providing them the number of patients. Hence, the share of revenue so collected in the hands of the appellant cannot be categorized as a consideration for rendering the health service to the patients. The Department emphasis upon the copies of various scan reports on the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant that they are discharging Business Auxiliary Services liability. The demand under BSS is held to have rightly been confirmed vide the orders under challenge. 12. Now coming to the liability of the appellant for allegedly rendering Management Maintenance Repair Services to the food courts (FC) in the appellant s premises, we observe: As apparent, the agreement of the appellant with the FCs is to provide basic amenities as water, electricity, air-conditioning, power back-up etc. It is also apparent that appellant while allowing the FCs to operate in its premises, it charges a fixed amount and also receives a fixed percentage from the sale of these FCs. The activity is opined to not to fall under definition of MMR in Section 65 (64) of the Act. It is rather an admitted fact that w.e.f. 01.06.2007, the appellant is discharging his liability as Renting of Immovable Property Services qua the consideration received from these FC s. The case law as relied upon by the appellant i.e. Aravali Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur 2016 (18) TMI 675 (Tr.-Del.) is held to be applicable to the facts of this case. In view of above discussion, the demand of service tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
