Dermatology clinic treatment for psoriasis, dandruff and infections-healthcare vs cosmetic procedures-held exempt under Sl. No. 74 notification

Healthcare services rendered by a clinical establishment in connection with diagnosis, treatment, or care for dermatological ailments such as psoriasis, dandruff, dermatitis, anti-fungal infections, folliculitis, and similar conditions were examined for exemption under Sl. No. 74 of N/N 12/2017-CT(R). Applying the statutory exclusion for cosmetic/plastic procedures undertaken for aesthetic enhancement, the authority held that only services constituting "health care services" qualify, and purely cosmetic services do not, unless performed to restore or reconstruct anatomy or bodily function affected by congenital defect, developmental abnormality, injury, or trauma. Accordingly, the impugned dermatological treatment services were held exempt under Sl. No. 74 of N/N 12/2017-CT(R).

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether services consisting of diagnosis, treatment, and care for specified dermatological ailments (psoriasis of skin/scalp, dandruff, dermatitis, anti-fungal infections, folliculitis, and similar conditions) qualify as "healthcare services" and are thereby exempt under Sl. No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), when provided by the applicant through its clinics.

(ii) Whether the applicant qualifies as a "clinical establishment" for the purpose of claiming the exemption under Sl. No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Exemption eligibility as "healthcare services" for dermatological treatments

Legal framework: The Authority examined Sl. No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), which prescribes NIL rate for healthcare services provided by a clinical establishment, an authorised medical practitioner, or para-medics. The Authority also considered the Notification definitions of "healthcare services" and the embedded exclusion for hair transplant/cosmetic/plastic surgery except where undertaken to restore or reconstruct anatomy or body functions affected due to specified causes.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Authority treated the decisive elements as: (a) the service must be by way of diagnosis or treatment or care for "illness" or "abnormality" in a recognized system of medicine; and (b) the service must not fall within the cosmetic/purely aesthetic exclusion. On facts, the Authority accepted that psoriasis, dermatitis, fungal infections, and folliculitis are medically recognized conditions requiring professional diagnosis and treatment, and therefore fall within "illness"/"abnormality" contemplated by the exemption. The Authority relied on the nature of the activity as evidenced by consultation forms, prescriptions/remarks by qualified doctors, diagnostic/pathological reports, consent documentation, and follow-up records to conclude the services were clinical and therapeutic rather than beauty care or aesthetic enhancement.

Conclusions: The Authority conclusively held that the diagnosis/treatment/care services rendered in connection with psoriasis, dandruff, dermatitis, anti-fungal infections, folliculitis, and similar dermatological conditions constitute "healthcare services" and are exempt under Sl. No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant is a "clinical establishment"

Legal framework: The Authority considered the Notification definition of "clinical establishment" as an institution (including a clinic) providing services or facilities requiring diagnosis, treatment, or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality, or pregnancy in any recognized system of medicine in India.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Authority found that the applicant's establishments function as clinics providing diagnosis and treatment for the stated dermatological ailments through qualified medical officers/dermatologists with supporting paramedical staff. The Authority further considered statutory licences produced by the applicant describing the establishments as "skin clinics," treating such recognition as reinforcing the applicant's status as a clinic within the meaning of "clinical establishment."

Conclusions: The Authority determined that the applicant satisfies the requirement of being a "clinical establishment" for purposes of Sl. No. 74, and therefore the exemption applies to the specified dermatological healthcare services. The Authority also reiterated, as a limiting principle of the exemption, that hair transplant and cosmetic/plastic surgery are excluded except where undertaken to restore or reconstruct anatomy or body functions affected due to the stated causes.

---