Advance Ruling- The present appeal has been filed against advance ruling order. 

The RULING has been requested on the QUESTION:-

“Whether the provisioning of diagnostic imaging services under the agreement/contract executed by Siemens healthcare pvt. ltd. (SHPL) with its customers would qualify for exemption from levy of GST under S. No. 74 of the Notification 12/2017-CT(R) dated 28/06/2017?”

The Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) had provided the following Ruling: –

“The services offered/ provided by the applicant do not qualify to be covered under the scope of exemption provided under entry at Sr. No. 74 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 and hence, these are not exempted”.

In the instant case, we find, the services being provided by the Appellant are not by way of diagnosis, but are the input service of provisioning of diagnostic imaging services under the contract/ agreement for further provisioning of Diagnostic service to the patients by the persons authorised to provide such services viz. medical practitioner/pathologist/radiologist.

The appellant’s contention is that since the circular 32/6/2018-GST dated 12.02.2018 allows exemption to the technicians hired by hospitals also, the exemption is admissible to SHPL also as its technicians are to operate MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) & CT (Computerized Tomography), X-Ray and Mammography machines installed in the clinical establishments (Customers of SHPL) & are to provide diagnostic images to the clinical establishments.

Held that- To avail the benefit of the exemption all the limbs of the notification must be satisfied i.e., the services have to be health care services as defined in clause (Zg) of para 2 of the notification & the services have to be provided by clinical establishment as defined in clause (s) of para 2 of the said notification. Since the appellant is to provide its diagnostic imaging services to the clinical establishment which in turn makes use of these images provided by the appellant & with the advice/opinion of medical practitioner/pathologist/radiologist makes diagnosis & provides it to the patient, the appellant can’t be said to provide diagnosis services to the patient, & hence not eligible to the exemption.