GST exemption for diagnostic services denied where provider failed to prove independent Clinical Establishment status and accreditation.

GST exemption under serial no. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) was available only to a provider that independently satisfied the definition of a Clinical Establishment and proved the prescribed conditions on record. The applicant failed to show its own accreditation or independent authority to issue diagnostic reports, as the arrangement was found to be collaborative or subcontracted rather than service provision in its own right. The exemption was therefore denied, and the applicant was held not to qualify as a Clinical Establishment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to exemption under serial no. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. (ii) Whether the applicant qualified as a "Clinical Establishment" under clause 2(s) of the notification.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to exemption under serial no. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: The exemption under serial no. 74 is available only where the supply is by way of healthcare services and the provider satisfies the specified description. The applicant failed to establish its own independent status as an accredited diagnostic entity and the material on record indicated that it was working through collaboration with other accredited laboratories rather than furnishing tests and reports in its own right.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to the exemption.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant qualified as a "Clinical Establishment" under clause 2(s) of the notification.

Analysis: A clinical establishment must itself be shown to be an institution offering diagnosis or treatment or an independent entity carrying out diagnostic or investigative services. The applicant produced no sufficient evidence of its own accreditation or independent authority to issue reports and opinions, and the arrangement was treated as one of ancillary or subcontracted activity.

Conclusion: The applicant did not qualify as a Clinical Establishment.

Final Conclusion: The requested GST exemption was denied because the applicant failed to satisfy the provider-specific requirement of being a Clinical Establishment, even though the activity may have involved healthcare services.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under the notification is available only when the service provider independently satisfies the definition of Clinical Establishment and the prescribed conditions for the exemption are proved on record.

---