TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 880
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue involved in both the appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for the purpose of discussion and decision. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant run a hospital which provides health services to the patients on its own and also by engaging various diagnostic agencies and doctors/consultants from outside on contract basis. Based on information that the Appellant were engaged in providing Business Support Services and were not paying service tax thereon, an investigation was initiated against the Appellant. During the course of investigation, it was found that the Appellant had oral agreements with various doctors/consultants on revenue sharing basis in relation to OPD and IPD patients, whereby a part of fee charged from patient treated/operated by independent doctor/consultant is retained by them in lieu of providing administrative support and operational support like clinical, mechanical and paramedics etc to them. As per the department, the services provided by the Appellant are not 'Health Care Services' but are 'Business Support Services' provided to doctors/consultants and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l.) • CCE & ST, Panchkula/Delhi-IV vs. Alchemist Hospital Ltd, Artemis Medicare Services Ltd (vice versa) - 2019 (3) TMI 1331 CESTAT Chandigarh • M/s Fortis Healthcare India Ltd vs. CCE - 2019 (9) TMI 462 CESTAT Chandigarh • M/s Gujarmal Modi Hospital & Research Centre for Medical Sciences vs. CST - 2019 (1) TMI 378 CESTAT New Delhi • M/s Ivy Health & Life Sciences P Ltd vs. CCE - 2019 (4) TMI 178 CESTAT Chandigarh • Om Savitri Jindal Charitable Society [Final Order No. 60819/2021 dated 25.03.2021 - CESTAT Chandigarh] • Om Savitri Jindal Charitable Society and NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research [Final Order No. 61695-61696/2025 dated 20.11.2025 - CESTAT Chandigarh] He further submits that it has been consistently held that said services for providing Health Care Services do not come under the category of Business Support Services and would be covered under Health Care Services only, which are exempt from the payment of service tax. 4.2 The learned Counsel further submits that the other objection of the department is that the Appellant had surrendered an amount aggregating to Rs. 2.35 cro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... • Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. vs. Union of India - 2014 (36) STR 37 (Cal.) • Shyam Spectra Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr of ST, Delhi-II [Final Order No. 56196/2024 dated 31.07.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 50583 of 2017] • M/s R.S. Financial Services vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II [Final Order No. 60489/2024 dated 27.08.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 1448 of 2011] 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the department reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that the issue involved in the present appeals is no longer res integra as has been decided by the Tribunal in various cases as cited supra wherein it has been consistently held that the services rendered by the hospitals do not fall under the category of 'Business Support Services' rather the said services fall under the category of 'Health Care Services' which are exempt from the payment of service tax. We find that the issue relating to revenue sharing arrangement between the Appellants and the Doctors, has been considered by this Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties to the doctors to attend to their work in the appellant hospitals. We find this is only an inference and not coming out manifestly from the terms of the agreement. 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 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. Applying the above ratio and examining the scope of the tax entry for BSS, we are of the considered view that there is no taxable activity identifiable in the present arrangement for tax liability of the appellant hospitals. 9. Under negative list regime w.e.f. 01.07.2012, the health care services are exempt from service tax. Earlier the health care services were only taxed for specified category of hospitals and for specified patients during the period 01.07.2010 to 01.05.2011. With effect from 01.05.2011, health care services were exempt from service tax under Notification No.30/2011 ST. After introduction of negative list tax regime, Notification No. 25/2011-ST exempted levy of service tax on health care services rendered by clinical establishments. We have examined the scope of the terms 'clinical establishments' and 'health care services'. The notification defines these terms. The term 'clinical establishments' is defined as below: "Clinical establishment" means hospital, nursing home, clinic, sanatorium or any other institution by whatever name called, that offers services or facilities requiring diagnosis or treatment of care for illness, injury, defo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar from the communication dated August 20, 2018 sent by the department." 4.4 The decision of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital has been followed by the CESTAT in a series of decisions referred to by the learned counsel. Revenue has not shown a single decision wherein contrary view has been taken. 4.5 In view of the above in our opinion the issue is squarely on all fours, is identical to the case of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Hence following the ratio of that decision we do not find any merits in the impugned order, and set aside the same. 5.1 In view of the discussions as above, appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside." 7. As regards the invocation of extended period of limitation is concerned, we find that the issue involved in the present case was relating to interpretation of statutory provision, therefore, the extended period cannot be invoked as the issue was pan India and the Tribunal/Courts in various decisions have held that the services provided by the Hospitals are not 'Business Support Services' rather these services are 'Health Care Services' which are not subject to service tax. Further, we find that the department has not been able to establ....