Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
Healthcare services supplied by a clinical establishment through doctors, specialists and para-medical personnel were held exempt under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) read with the CBIC circular, because the substance of the arrangement was direct diagnosis, treatment and medical care to patients. The revenue-sharing structure did not convert the service into manpower supply or business support, and classification under SAC 9985 was rejected. The show cause notices seeking GST on exempt healthcare services were without jurisdiction and were quashed. The writ petitions were maintainable despite the alternative remedy objection because the notices proceeded on an erroneous denial of exemption and the foundational jurisdictional facts were absent.
Healthcare services supplied by a clinical establishment through doctors, specialists and para-medical personnel were held exempt under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) read with the CBIC circular, because the substance of the arrangement was direct diagnosis, treatment and medical care to patients. The revenue-sharing structure did not convert the service into manpower supply or business support, and classification under SAC 9985 was rejected. The show cause notices seeking GST on exempt healthcare services were without jurisdiction and were quashed. The writ petitions were maintainable despite the alternative remedy objection because the notices proceeded on an erroneous denial of exemption and the foundational jurisdictional facts were absent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.