Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 256 on GST implications on administration of Covid-19 vaccines

GST Update No 256 on GST implications on administration of Covid-19 vaccines
It is well known fact that health care sector is one of the most sensitive sectors wherein levy of GST is prone to litigation as the ultimate intention of the government is to provide free medical facilities to the citizens of the Country. The outbreak of Covid-19 placed a need to safeguard the interests of the citizens and after several clinical trials, vaccination drive being one of the significant leaps in India’s public health started to play its role. However, doubts were in the minds of assessees as to whether the said supply shall be covered under Health Care Services and thus, exempted from levy of GST. Recently, one case was reported before Andhra Pradesh AAR in the case of M/S KRISHNA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES LIMITED wherein it was enquired as to whether administering of COVID-19 vaccination by hospitals is supply of good or supply of service. The decision imparted in this case is the subject matter of discussion of our present update.
 
The appellant is a multi-specialty hospital engaged in rendering health care services which are exempted vide Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017. The company also supplies pharmacy based on prescription to outdoor patients on which tax is levied. The company was permitted to administer the Covid-19 vaccine. The process of administration of vaccine was explained in detail specifying that health care personnel who administers vaccine should be authorised medical practitioner and should have received competency-based training on vaccine administration. The Government’s institute i.e. NEGVAC will guide the aspects of covid-19 vaccine. Further, it was stated that administration process involves pre-vaccine, vaccination and post-vaccination process. The appellant sought an advance ruling on following issues:
1.     Whether the administration of Covid-19 vaccination by hospitals is supply of goods or supply of services?
2.     Whether administration of vaccine qualify as “health care service” and thereby stand exempted from levy of tax?
3.     Whether administrating of Covid-19 vaccine by clinical establishment is exempt under GST?
 
The appellant referred to definitions of goods, services, composite supply and healthcare-services as defined under Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017. It was further submitted that vaccines vial is not available for sale by pharmacy and the beneficiaries are not at liberty to get vaccinated by themselves or by any other person other than medical professional. Further, the beneficiaries visit hospital to get vaccination directly injected into the body. Therefore, it should not be considered as supply of goods. Further, various activities undertaken during the process of vaccination were considered concluding that the vaccination involves combination of supply of goods and services and thereby it is termed as composite supply. As regards to health care services, it was argued that the process is undertaken for the care of beneficiaries to develop their immunity against the chronic illness and hence, it shall stand exempted being health care service vide Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax Rate.
 
The AAR discussed as to whether administering of Covid-19 vaccine by hospital is supply of goods or services or both. It was concluded that there are two activities in the transaction, sale of vaccine being supply of goods and administering of vaccine being supply of service. Therefore, in the present case it is composite supply which is naturally bundled and principal supply being supply of goods since it is a choice of recipient which vaccine to be injected i.e. Covishield or Covaxin. Therefore, sale of vaccine shall be chargeable at the rate of 5%. As far as exemption is concerned, it is stated that inpatient services are exempted under GST and supply of vaccine is nowhere covered under inpatient services. Therefore, the given supply is not exempted under Health Care Services.
 
The above decision is yet another example to support the fact that advance ruling authorities are following pro-revenue approach and delivering adverse rulings. It is pertinent to mention here that recently the Apex Court in the case of Mohit Minerals V/s Union of India delivered that it is not possible to bifurcate the service portion in a composite supply so as to levy GST on the said service portion separately. However, it is extremely disheartening that the lower authorities are not following the analogy adopted by the Apex Court. In the present case, the principal supply in the composite supply of administering of COVID-19 vaccine is the health care service and not sale of vaccine. Consequently, levy of 5% GST on such vaccines is totally unjustifiable. Moreover, COVID-19 vaccines were being provided free of cost to the individuals and so the transaction should not be considered as supply in the first place itself as it lacks consideration. As such, no GST should be leviable on this transaction.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com