9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HELD THAT: - The relationship between the hospital and the pathology laboratory is in the nature of a joint venture and, therefore, the appellant did not provide any service to such pathology laboratory agencies. The fact that the arrangement between the appellant and the agencies was a joint venture is clear from the arrangement entered into between the parties - The agreements laid down conditions by which the testing laboratories and the hospital will contribute their respective shares in the activities, and also the rules for conducting the business. This is not a case of the appellant providing only infrastructural facilities and receiving a income - it is clearly a case of joint venture in which neither any party renders any service to the other. In this connection, reliance can be placed to the decision of the Tribunal in MORMUGAO PORT TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, GOA- (VICE-VERSA) [ 2016 (11) TMI 520 - CESTAT MUMBAI] , where it was held that ' The money flow to the Assessee from SWPL, under the nomenclature of Royalty, is not a consideration for rendition of any services but infact represents the Appellant s share of revenue arisin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The appellant filed a reply to the show cause notice and denied the allegations made therein. 5. The Principal Commissioner, however, confirmed the demand of Rs. 97,58,904/- as against the demand of Rs. 97,78,507/- proposed in the show cause notice by invoking the extended period of limitation contemplated under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Finance Act.]. 6. Shri P.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that an arrangement in which a hospital secures consultation of independent doctors for its patients and shares revenue with them and retains certain amount will not come under the category of business auxiliary service and in support of this contention learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vs Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi [2020(43) GSTL 390 (Tri-Del)] Learned counsel also submitted that the relation between the appellant and pathology labs is in the nature of a joint venture and, therefore, it cannot be alleged that the appellant had provided any service to such pathology laboratories while sharing revenue with them. To support this contention, learned counsel pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rized as infrastructural support to the doctors. The revenue model, as agreed upon between the contracting parties also, did not refer to any consideration attributable to such infrastructural support service. 6. The proceedings by the Revenue, initiated against the appellant hospitals, are mainly on the inference drawn to the effect that the retained amount by the hospitals out of total charges collected from the patients should be considered as an amount for providing the infrastructure like room and certain other secretarial facilities to the doctors to attend to their work in the appellant hospitals. We find this is only an inference and not coming out manifestly from the terms of the agreement. Here, it is very relevant to note that the appellant hospitals are engaged in providing health care services. This can be done by appointing the required professionals directly as employees. The same can also be done by having contractual arrangements like the present ones. In such arrangement, the doctors of required qualification are engaged/contractually appointed to provide health care services. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. There is a revenue sharing model. The doctor is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d above. For such services, amount is collected from the patients. The same is shared by the clinical establishment with the doctors. There is no legal justification to tax the share of clinical establishment on the ground that they have supported the commerce or business of doctors by providing infrastructure. We find that such assertion is neither factually nor legally sustainable. 12. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal has been accepted by the Department as is clear from the communication dated August 20, 2018 sent by the department. 13. This apart, the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant has been subsequently followed by the Tribunal in the following four decisions: (i) M/s. Gujarmal Modi Hospital Research Centre For Medical Sciences v. CST, Delhi-II [2019 (1) TMI 378-CESTAT NEW DELHI]. (ii) M/s. Fortis Healthcare (India) Limited v. CCE ST-Chandigarh-I [2019 (9) TMI 462-CESTAT CHANDIGARH]. (iii) M/s. Ivy Health Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh-II/Ludhiana. [2019 (4) TMI 178-CESTAT CHANDIGARH] (iv) CCE ST, Panchkula, Delhi-IV v. Alchemist Hospital Limited, Artemis Medicare Services Limited (Vice Versa) [2019 (3) TMI 1331-CESTAT CHANDIGARH]. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
