2023 (1) TMI 391 - AT - Service Tax

Hospital's 22% Fee Retention for Doctor Support Not Taxable Under Section 65(105)(zzzq)

M/s. Maharaja Agrasen Hospital Charitable Trust Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-III

The CESTAT New Delhi held that the hospital's retention of 22% of fees from patients, purportedly for providing facilities and administrative support to ... Levy of service tax - providing business support service to doctors by providing facilities and administrative support to them - April 01, 2012 to March 31, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The patients will be billed according to the charges stipulated in the chargelist and out of the total fees (after the deduction of TDS) settled at the time of appointment, 78% would be paid to the doctors and the remaining 22% will be retained by the Hospital. The Commissioner has found that the amount retained by the Hospital is towards the services rendered by the Hospital to the doctors for providing all the necessary facilities which are necessary and without which the doctors cannot perform their activities and therefore, the said service would be classifiable under section 65 (104) (c) as “support services of business and commerce” and taxable under section 65 (105) (zzzq) of the Finance Act 1994. This precise issue had come up for consideration before two Benches of the Tribunal in Ganga Ram Hospital [2017 (12) TMI 509 - CESTAT NEW DELHI & 2020 (11) TMI 536 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. The first decision rendered on December 06, 2017 [2017 (12) TMI 509 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] was considered in the subsequent decision rendered on September 02, 2020 [2020 (11) TMI 536 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - The Tribunal, after a consideration of the conditions prescribed in the agreement held that the arrangement was for joint benefit of both the parties with shared obligations, responsibilities and benefits and, therefore, no service was provided by the hospital to the doctors. Thus, the Commissioner was not justified in confirming the demand of service tax under the head business support services - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Classification of services provided by the hospital to doctors under 'business support services.'2. Confirmation of service tax demand under 'renting of immovable property services.'Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Services under 'Business Support Services':The appeal challenges the order dated March 31, 2016, where the Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax under 'business auxiliary service' and 'renting of immovable property service' with penalties and interest. The primary contention revolves around whether the hospital's retention of 22% of the fees collected from patients constitutes 'business support services.'- Background: - The appellant, a hospital, engages doctors as consultants and retains 22% of the fees collected from patients, providing the remaining 78% to the doctors. - Two show cause notices were issued, alleging that the hospital was providing 'business support service' to doctors by offering facilities and administrative support.- Commissioner's Findings: - The Commissioner determined that the retained 22% was for infrastructural support services, including secretarial support, consultation chambers, and other facilities necessary for doctors to perform their activities. - The Commissioner classified these services under Section 65(105)(zzzq) read with Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994, as 'support services of business and commerce.'- Appellant's Arguments: - The appellant argued that the arrangement was for the joint benefit of both parties, with shared obligations and benefits, and no specific service was provided by the hospital to the doctors. - Reliance was placed on previous Tribunal decisions in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital cases, where similar arrangements were held not to constitute 'business support services.'- Tribunal's Analysis: - The Tribunal referred to the agreement between the hospital and the doctors, noting that the arrangement was for mutual benefit and did not specify any particular infrastructural support as a service. - In previous decisions, the Tribunal had held that such arrangements were for the joint benefit of both parties and did not constitute 'business support services.' The revenue model did not attribute any consideration to infrastructural support services. - The Tribunal emphasized that health care services provided by clinical establishments are exempt from service tax, and taxing the retained amount would defeat this exemption.- Conclusion: - The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner was not justified in confirming the demand of service tax under 'business support services.' The previous Tribunal decisions were accepted by the Department and followed in subsequent cases.2. Confirmation of Service Tax under 'Renting of Immovable Property Services':The appeal did not contest the confirmation of service tax under 'renting of immovable property services,' as the appellant had already deposited the service tax for this category.Judgment:The Tribunal set aside the order dated March 31, 2016, passed by the Commissioner, concluding that the demand of service tax under 'business support services' was not justified. The appeal was allowed, and the order was not sustained.