AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....service tax during the different periods involved in the show cause notices; in the course of such provisions, the Appellant availed certain specialized services such as Radio Diagnosis, MRT, CT Scan, Dental Care etc from specialized service providers namely, (i) CT Scan Research Centre Pvt Ltd, (ii) Landmark Medscan Pvt Ltd and (iii) Axiss Dental Pvt Ltd (refers as 'DSPs') within the hospital premises on payment of agreed/fixed consideration/revenue. The Appellant entered into specific agreements with all these DSPs, the terms & conditions of which clearly states that it is a service simpliciter agreement on principal-to-principal basis. The department entertained the view that the Appellant were providing 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' to the DSPs and therefore, the Appellant are liable to pay service tax under the said category. On these allegations, the department issued the show cause notice dated 22.04.2014 by invoking the extended period of limitation. After following the due process, the learned Commissioner, vide the impugned Order-in- Original, confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere non-disclosure/non-filing of ST-3 returns does not amount to suppression of facts and therefore, extended period cannot be invoked. For this, he relies on the following judgment: • CCE & ST vs. Elegant Developers [2025 SCC Online SC 2376] 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 and has been settled by the Tribunal in favour of the assessees/appellants in various cases as cited above. In this regard, we may refer to decision of the Tribunal in the case of OP Jindal Institute of Cancer & Research (supra), wherein this Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 60579/2024 dated 16.10.2024, has considered the identical issue along with the agreements entered into by the Appellant with the DSPs and has held that revenue sharing arrangements between the Appellant and the DSPs are not subject to service tax; the relevant findings of the Tribunal are reproduced herein bel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... parties clearly shows that the contracts between the appellant and various DSPs are on principal-to-principal basis and are in the nature of sharing-revenue. As per the contracts, the appellant is required to provide infrastructure and DSPs are required to install their equipments; and the revenue earned from the patients is shared between the appellant and the DSPs and no taxable service is being provided by the appellant to DSPs. Here, it is pertinent to extract the relevant clauses of such agreements with regard to sharing of revenue. The relevant clauses of one of the contracts with one of DSPs, Dr. Lal Pathlabs Pvt Ltd ('LPL'), is reproduced herein below: "Revenue Sharing:- • "The Hospital" and LPL will share the net revenue as below. Net Revenues for this purpose means all revenues earned out of pathology tests of the hospital subject to discounts, rebates etc. • In respect of the work referred by the Hospital and are carried out at the lab in the hospital itself as per the attached Annexure C, LPL and the Hospital will share revenue in the proportion of 50:50. • In respect of the work referred by the Hospital and are carried o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uipments and machines and operate their respective centers in the hospital. In fact, diagnostic services are provided by the Hospital through the patients using the expertise and machinery of the DSPs. All reports of such diagnostic services are issued under the name of the Hospital. Further, the billing of such services is also done by the appellant's Hospital to the patients directly. Further, the entire revenue from the diagnostic centers is accounted for in the books of account as 'revenue of the appellant' and the appellant pays for the services provided by the DSPs to the appellant after retaining its own percentage. It clearly shows that the service, if any, has been provided by DSPs to the appellant and not by the appellant to DSPs. 10. We also note that it is the appellant who established the Hospital and providing healthcare services to the patients and DSPs are, in fact, a part of the appellant as a joint venture who are providing diagnostic services to the patients; it is the patient, who is ultimate recipient and beneficiary of medical services in the appellant's Hospital. In fact, the Hospital provides the healthcare services to the patients and whenever any ....