Clinical trial support services, not direct trial services, where an entity only coordinates and facilitates hospital-led studies.

An Indian entity that only sponsors, coordinates, arranges permissions for, and administratively supports clinical trials conducted by independent hospitals and doctors is characterised by its real substance, not as the direct provider of clinical trial services. On the documented facts, the entity lacked its own manpower and infrastructure to conduct trials and merely facilitated third-party investigators while keeping the overseas principal informed. Because the actual conduct and supervision of the trials remained with the hospitals or investigators under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and Schedule Y, the activity was treated as support services to the overseas principal rather than intermediary services or taxable clinical trial services in India. The Revenue's contrary demand was therefore not sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the services rendered by the assessee in relation to clinical trials were support services to the overseas principal or clinical trial services liable to service tax in India, and whether the Revenue's demand could be sustained.

Analysis: The agreements and surrounding documents showed that the assessee did not itself have the manpower or infrastructure to conduct clinical trials and instead identified hospitals and doctors, arranged for third-party engagement, obtained regulatory permissions, and kept the overseas principal informed of progress and results. Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and Schedule Y, the investigators or hospitals were the persons actually conducting and supervising the clinical trials, while the assessee acted as sponsor and facilitator. The services were therefore not intermediary services, as there was no tripartite arrangement of the kind urged by the Revenue, and the assessee was only providing support in connection with clinical trials conducted by others in India. The contrary plea that the assessee itself conducted clinical trials and that the activity should nonetheless be treated as export was rejected as inconsistent with the facts and beyond the proper scope of the export argument.

Conclusion: The assessee was held to be providing support services to its overseas principal and not taxable clinical trial services as alleged by the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the demand was set aside as the assessee's role was confined to arranging and supporting clinical trials conducted by hospitals and doctors.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an Indian entity only sponsors, coordinates, and administratively supports clinical trials actually conducted by independent hospitals or doctors under the regulatory framework, the activity is to be characterised by its real substance and not as direct clinical trial service by that entity.

---