9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant hospital s infrastructure. Even in the show cause notice, it is mentioned that consultants/doctors are required to work for the hospital which clearly indicates that the doctors are working with the appellant s hospital and it is the visiting doctors who, in fact, are service providers to the appellant s hospital as the appellant s hospital is availing the services of such visiting doctors, for which they are paid by the said hospital as per the agreement and not the vice versa. Further, the appellant s hospital, being a service recipient, is deducting TDS in terms of Section 194 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the remuneration paid to the visiting doctors. This issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee by various decisions. In the case of M/S SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL, BOMBAY HOSPITAL MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE, APPOLLO HOSPITALS, M/S MAX HEALTH CARE INSTITUTE LTD VERSUS CCE DELHI-I, CCE ST INDORE, CCE ST RAIPUR, CST NEW DELHI AND CST DELHI VERSUS M/S INDRAPRASTHA MEDICAL CORPORATION LTD [ 2017 (12) TMI 509 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , it was observed by the Tribunal that Applying the above ratio and examining the scope of the tax entry for BSS, we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its hospital. The appellant provides these services either by employee doctors employed at payrolls of the appellant or by associating with various specialist visiting doctors vide an agreement stipulating the terms and conditions of their appointment. The appellant has privity of contract with the patients, and not the visiting doctors; and it is the appellant who allocates a specific visiting doctor to the patients. It is the appellant who raises the bill for medical/healthcare services to the patients, and not the doctors. The visiting doctors are not allowed to undertake their independent practice/profession by using its infrastructure. The Revenue entertained the view that the appellant is engaged in the rendering of Business Support Services to the visiting doctors in terms of Section 65(104c) read with Section 65(105)(zzzq) of the Act. On these allegations, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding service tax under the category of Business Support Services . The appellant filed detailed reply to the show cause notice and also furnished all the documents as desired by the Department. After following the due process, the learned Commissioner adjudicated the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hospital s infrastructure. 4.6 He further submits that in fact, it is the visiting doctors who are service providers to the appellant s hospital as the appellant s hospital is availing the services of such visiting doctors, for which they are paid by the said hospital as per the agreement and not the vice versa. Further, the appellant s hospital, being a service recipient, is deducting TDS in terms of Section 194 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the remuneration paid to the visiting doctors. 4.7 He further submits that the appellant has not suppressed any information from the Department and has been filing regular Service Tax Returns and disclosing all the documents to the Department and the no mens rea has been established against the appellant to invoke extended period of limitation. 4.8 He further submits that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. In support of his submission, he relies on the following case-laws: a) Sir Ganga Hospital vs. CCE, Delhi-I [MANU/CE/0985/2017] b) CCE ST, Panchkula vs. Alchemist Hospital Limited [MANU/CJ/0008/2019] c) Fortis Healthcare (India) Ltd vs. CCE ST, Chandigarh-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record and also the judgments cited by both the sides. The only issue in the present case is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of Business Support Services in terms of Section 65(104c) read with Section 65(105)(zzzq) of the Act on account of the fact that the appellant has provided infrastructure and administrative facilities to the visiting doctors. As per the Revenue, infrastructural and other support services provided by the appellant to the visiting doctors fall in the gamut of Business Support Services ; whereas, as per the appellant, the true intention and purpose of entering into the agreement with the visiting doctors is to avail the services of such visiting doctors to render treatment and healthcare services to the patients who come to the appellant s hospital for medical treatment. 7. We also find that as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreements between the appellant and the visiting doctors, such visiting doctors are being paid in proportionate to the actual wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mutually beneficial arrangement. There is a revenue sharing model. The doctor is attending to the patient for treatment using his professional skill and knowledge. The appellants hospitals are managing the patients from the time they enter the hospital till they leave the premises. ID cards are provided, records are maintained, all the supporting assistance are also provided when the patients are in the appellant hospital premises. The appellant hospital also manages the follow-up procedures and provide for further health service in the manner as required by the patients. As can be seen that the appellants hospitals are actually availing the professional services of the doctors for providing health care service. For this, they are paying the doctors. The retained money out of the amount charged from the patients is necessarily also for such health care services. The patient paid the full amount to the appellant hospitals and received health care services. For providing such services, the appellants entered into an agreement, as discussed above, with various consulting doctors. We do not find any business support services in such arrangement. 7. The inference made by the Revenue t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and in the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. Further, in the case of Fortis Healthcare (India) Ltd vs. CCE ST, Chandigarh-I (cited supra), the Tribunal after relying upon the decision of Sir Ganga Hospital s case, has held that the appellant had not provided any Business Support Service to the consultants/doctors or patient, therefore, no service tax is payable by appellant under the category of Business Support Service and in the result, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal of the appellant was allowed with consequential relief. The same view has also been taken in the cases of M/s Gujarmal Modi Hospital Research Centre for Medical Science vs. Commissioner of S.T., Delhi 2019 (1) TMI 378 CESTAT NEW DELHI and M/s Ivy Health Life Science Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II 2019 (4) TMI 178 CESTAT CHANDIGARH. 10. Further, we also find that on the same allegations, two more show cause notices, issued to the appellant for the subsequent period, were dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. LUD-EXCUS-001-APP-790-18 dated 26.03.2018 after relying upon the decision of Sir Ganga Hospital s c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
