TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994. (ii) Out of total demand of Service Tax of Rs. 16,42,038/-, I drop the demand of Rs. 1,63,269/-(One Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Nine only) and confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 14,78,769/- (Rs. Fourteen Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred & Sixty Nine only) against M/s O.P. Jindal Institute of Cancer and Research, Model Town, Hisar- 125001 as detailed above in Table (1) and order its recovery from them under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking the extended period of five years. (iii) Out of total demand of Education Cess of Rs. 32,841/-, I drop the demand of Rs. 3,265/-(Rs. Three Thousand Two Hundred & Sixty Five only) and confirm the demand of Education Cess amounting to Rs. 29,576/- (Rs. Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Six only) and out of total demand of Secondary Higher Education Cess of Rs. 16,420/-, I drop the demand of Rs. 1.632/- (Rs. One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two only) and confirm the demand of Secondary Higher Education Cess of Rs. 14788/- (Rs. Fourteen Thousand Seven Hundr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....search, Model Town, Hisar-125001 under Section 73(1) of Finance Act. 1994. read with Section 95 of the Finance Act, 2004 and Section 140 of the Finance Act, 2007 and order its recovery from them.. (ii) I confirm the recovery of interest at appropriate rate on amount of Service Tax confirmed for recovery as mentioned at Sr No. (i) above from M/s O.P. Jindal Institute of Cancer and Research, Model Town, Hisar 125001 under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 from the due date till the date of actual deposit of the amount confirmed. (iii) I also impose, under Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994: a penalty of Rs 100/- (Rupees One Hundred Only) for every day during which failure to pay service tax continues or @ 1 % of such tax per month, whichever is higher, starting with the first day after the due date till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount of service tax provided that total amount of the penalty payable shall not exceed fifty per cent of the service tax payable, and (iv & v) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-( Rs. Ten Thousand only) upon M/s O.P. Jindal Institute of Cancer and Research, Model Town, Hisar 125001, under Section 77....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... o M/s. Ivy Health & Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (4) TMI 178 - CESTAT Chandigarh] o Holy Family Hospital [2018 (3) TMI 508 - CESTAT New Delhi] o M/s National Health & Education Society & others [2019 (6) TMI 71 - CESTAT Mumbai] o M/s Fortis Healthcare (India) Limited [2019 (9) TMI 462 - CESTAT Chandigarh] o M/s Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vs. Commissioner of Service Tax [2020 (11) TMI 536 - CESTAT New Delhi] ● The present transaction is on a principal to principal basis for sharing of revenues. o The Appellant humbly submits that it had entered into a revenue sharing arrangement with the doctors for the purpose of providing healthcare services to the patients. The said agreement was executed between the parties on a principal to principal basis, where the revenue was shared in a predetermined manner o the Appellant as well as the doctors were performing their respective obligations under the agreement. Further, the purpose of the agreement was to provide healthcare services to the patients. Thus, there was no provision of service by the Appellant to the doctors or vice-versa and hence, demand for service tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....along with other doctors, subordinate doctors, para-medical staff, equipment, technical staff, etc. Thus, the Appellant is rendering healthcare services to the patients and for providing these services, the Appellant receives services from professional persons such as consultants, doctors, paramedical staff etc. o With effect from 01.07.2010, the Finance Act, 2010 levied service tax on limited medical services provided by a hospital under the defined circumstances by virtue of clause (zzzzo) in Section 65(105). The said clause was substituted vide Finance Act, 2011 w.e.f. 01.05.2011, however, simultaneously, healthcare services were exempted from service tax under Notification No. 30/2011-ST dated 25.04.2011, which was in force till 19.06.2012. o With the advent of negative list regime, the healthcare services were exempted vide Entry No. 2 of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Further, the said activity still does not qualify as a service under Section 65B(44) of the Act as there is no flow of consideration from the doctors to the Appellant, which is an essential ingredient. In fact, it is the Appellant which pays amount to the docto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Hospital for all their patients. The Consultant/Doctors could not have provided the treatment without the infrastructure support provided by the Noticee Hospital and therefore revenue sharing agreement was entered by the Noticee with Consultants/Doctors towards these facilities and the administrative support provided by the Noticee. The Noticee is also collecting fees from the patients, maintaining accounts for such collection and retained their share of revenue collected from the patients treated by the visiting Consultants/Doctors towards the facilities and the administrative support provided by the Hospital. The retention of their portion of the revenue sharing is purely business or commercial activity. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the said services are nothing but infrastructural service; services for operational of transactions and thus are fully covered under "Support Service of Business or Commerce." ⮚ That the Appellant have also contended that they are basically providing health care service and not Business Support Service. In fact they have contradicted themselves by admitting that the Hospital is claimed to be engaged in its core activ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith Intent to evade ten and nondisclosure of true figures in the ST-3 returns, therefore, penalty under Section 77 and 78 has been imposed. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in the Appeal, during the course of arguments and in written submissions filed by both the sides. 4.2 We find that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Delhi Bench of CESTAT in the case of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, supra, referred to by the counsel for appellant. "5. The claim of the Revenue is that the appellants have provided infrastructural support service to various doctors. As a consideration for such support, they have retained a part of the amount collected from visiting patients. We have perused some of the agreements/appointment arrangements entered into between the appellants hospitals and the individual doctors. Typically the arrangement contains details like duration of time for consultation, the obligations on the part of the doctors fee to be paid procedure for termination of agreement, etc. The agreements generally talk about appointment of consultants to provide services to the patients who will visit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing 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 hospitals and received health care services. For providing such services, the appellants entered into an agreement, as discussed above, with various consulting doctors. We do not find any business support services in such arrangements. 7. The inference made by the Revenue that the retained amount by the hospital is to compensate the infrastructural support provided to the doctors can be examined in another angle also. Reading the statutory provisions for BSS, we note that the services mentioned therein are "provided in relation to business or commerce." As such, to bring in a tax liability on the appellant hospital, it should be held that they are providing infrastructural support services in relation to business or commerce. That means, the doctors are in business or commerce and are provided with infrastructural support. This apparently is the view of the Revenue. We are not in agreement with s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... abnormality or pregnancy in any recognized system of medicines in India, or a place established as an independent entity or a part of an establishment to carry out diagnostic or investigative services of diseases." 10. The terms "health care services" is defined as below: "health care services" means any service by way of diagnosis or treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy in any recognized system of medicines in India and includes services by way of transportation of the patient to and from a clinical establishment but does not include their transplant or cosmetic or plastic surgery, except when undertaken to restore or to reconstruct anatomy or functions of both affected due to congenial defects, developmental abnormalities, injury or trauma." 11. These two provisions available in Notification No. 25/2012 will show that a clinical establishment providing health care services are exempted from services tax. The view of the Revenue that is spite of such exemption available to health care services, a part of the consideration received for such health care services from the patients shall be taxed as business suppor....