TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant is engaged in operation of a hospital, namely Satguru Partap Singh Apollo Hospitals at Ludhiana, Punjab and is registered with the Service Tax Department. The appellant provides healthcare services to the patients who come at its hospital. The appellant provides these services either by employee doctors employed at payrolls of the appellant or by associating with various specialist visiting doctors vide an agreement stipulating the terms and conditions of their appointment. The appellant has privity of contract with the patients, and not the visiting doctors; and it is the appellant who allocates a specific visiting doctor to the patients. It is the appellant who raises the bill for medical/healthcare services to the patients, and not the doctors. The visiting doctors are not allowed to undertake their independent practice/profession by using its infrastructure. The Revenue entertained the view that the appellant is engaged in the rendering of "Business Support Services" to the visiting doctors in terms of Section 65(104c) read with Section 65(105)(zzzq) of the Act. On these allegations, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding service tax under the categ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s hospital. 4.5 He also submits that the visiting doctors are entitled to professional fee as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement and they are not allowed to undertake their independent practice/profession by availing the appellant hospital's infrastructure. 4.6 He further submits that in fact, it is the visiting doctors who are service providers to the appellant's hospital as the appellant's hospital is availing the services of such visiting doctors, for which they are paid by the said hospital as per the agreement and not the vice versa. Further, the appellant's hospital, being a service recipient, is deducting TDS in terms of Section 194 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the remuneration paid to the visiting doctors. 4.7 He further submits that the appellant has not suppressed any information from the Department and has been filing regular Service Tax Returns and disclosing all the documents to the Department and the no mens rea has been established against the appellant to invoke extended period of limitation. 4.8 He further submits that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal in favour of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not due to any fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provision is not sufficient to attract the extended period of limitation. 4.11 Further, he submits that the question of demand of interest and imposition of penalty does not arise because the demand of service tax itself is not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record and also the judgments cited by both the sides. The only issue in the present case is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of "Business Support Services" in terms of Section 65(104c) read with Section 65(105)(zzzq) of the Act on account of the fact that the appellant has provided infrastructure and administrative facilities to the visiting doctors. As per the Revenue, infrastructural and other support services provided by the appellant to the visiting doctors fall in the gamut of "Business Support Services"; whereas, as per the appellant, the true intention and purpose of entering into the agreement with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Here, it is very relevant to note that the appellant hospitals are engaged in providing health care services. This can be done by appointing the required professionals directly as employees. The same can also be done by having contractual arrangements like the present ones. In such arrangement, the doctors of required qualification are engaged/contractually appointed to provide health care services. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. There is a revenue sharing model. The doctor is attending to the patient for treatment using his professional skill and knowledge. The appellants hospitals are managing the patients from the time they enter the hospital till they leave the premises. ID cards are provided, records are maintained, all the supporting assistance are also provided when the patients are in the appellant hospital premises. The appellant hospital also manages the follow-up procedures and provide for further health service in the manner as required by the patients. As can be seen that the appellants hospitals are actually availing the professional services of the doctors for providing health care service. For this, they are paying the doctors. The retained money out of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntifiable in the present arrangement for tax liability of the appellant hospitals." The decision of Sir Ganga Hospital's case was followed in the case of CCE & ST, Panchkula vs. Alchemist Hospital Limited (cited supra) and it was held by the Tribunal that "respondent-assessee were not provided any Business Support Service to the consultants/doctors or patient, therefore, no service tax is payable by respondent-assessee under the category of Business Support Service" and in the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. Further, in the case of Fortis Healthcare (India) Ltd vs. CCE & ST, Chandigarh-I (cited supra), the Tribunal after relying upon the decision of Sir Ganga Hospital's case, has held that "the appellant had not provided any Business Support Service to the consultants/doctors or patient, therefore, no service tax is payable by appellant under the category of Business Support Service" and in the result, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal of the appellant was allowed with consequential relief. The same view has also been taken in the cases of M/s Gujarmal Modi Hospital & Research Centre for Medica....