AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he purpose of providing healthcare services, the appellant engages the services of doctors, including specialist doctors. The appellant also engages specialized clinics/agencies to provide radiology, pain management and metal healthcare services. 3. Three show cause notices were issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant was engaged in providing "business support services‟ to the doctors and "renting of immovable property" to the clinics/agencies. The department also proposed to levy service tax on the income received under "miscellaneous receipts‟ by the appellant. 4. The appellant filed a detailed reply to the show cause notices and denied the allegations made therein. 5. The adjudicating authority, by an order passed in July 2016, confirmed the demands proposed in the show cause notices. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). As noticed above, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority except on the demand proposed under the "miscellaneous receipts‟. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined whether the service charges from the doctors and paid clinic charges we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es provided by the appellant would appropriately fall under the category of "business support services"` Learned counsel pointed out that the show cause notice that was issued to the appellant proposed to levy service tax under the head "renting of immovable property" and the demand has also been confirmed under the said head. Service tax under "business support services‟, therefore, cannot be demanded from the appellant for the reason that this was not the head under which service tax was proposed in the show cause notice. 8. Learned authorized representative for the Department, however, supported the impugned order. 9. The first issue that arises for consideration is whether service tax is payable by the appellant on the amount retained for allowing use of infrastructure by the contracted doctors. This issue has been decided in favour of the appellant in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital decided on 02.09.2020 and the relevant paragraphs are reproduced:- "11. This precise issue was considered by the Tribunal in connection with the earlier show cause notice to the appellant which involved the period both before and after July 1, 2012. The Tribunal held, after a careful co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting 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 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 appellant 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 the amount charged from the patients is necessarily also for such health care service. The patient paid the full amount to the appellant hospit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Sciences v. CST, Delhi-II [2019 (1) TMI 378-CESTAT NEW DELHI]. (ii) M/s. Fortis Healthcare (India) Limited v. CCE & ST-Chandigarh-I [2019 (9) TMI 462-CESTAT CHANDIGARH]. (iii) M/s. Ivy Health & Life Sciences Private Limited v. CCE, Chandigarh-II/Ludhiana. [2019 (4) TMI 178-CESTAT CHANDIGARH] (iv) CCE & ST, Panchkula, Delhi-IV v. Alchemist Hospital Limited, Artemis Medicare Services Limited (Vice Versa) [2019 (3) TMI 1331-CESTAT CHANDIGARH]. 14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, it has to be held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the demand of service tax under "business support service." (emphasis supplied) 10. The second issue arises for consideration is whether the confirmation of demand for renting of immovable property to the space provided to radiology centre, mental health clinic and pain management centre and cancer centre is justified. This issue has also been examined by the Tribunal in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital decided on 17.07.2018 and it has been held:- "7. It is apparent from record and is an admitted fact also that with three of the diagnostic centres the appe....