2026-VIL-1568-CESTAT-CHE-ST
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1568-CESTAT-CHE-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Exemption for technical testing and analysis of newly developed drugs on human participants, Role of Clinical Research Organisation versus Sponsor in regulatory – Appellant is Clinical Research Organisation engaged in providing services including clinical trial management and technical testing and analysis of newly developed drugs on human participants. Appellant conducted clinical trials under written agreements with pharmaceutical companies as Sponsors each of whom held DCGI-approved permission for the trials in question - Department issued Notice proposing denial of exemption under Notification 11/2007-ST dated 01.03.2007 and Notification 25/2012-ST Entry 7 dated 20.06.2012 contended that exemption required independent institutional approval to the CRO itself as the DCGI approval held by Sponsors is not sufficient - Whether technical testing and analysis service rendered by Clinical Research Organisation functioning under written contracts with DCGI-approved Sponsors and registered with Clinical Trial Registry of India qualifies for exemption when approval is granted to Sponsor and not to CRO independently - HELD - The exemption notification must be construed in light of the actual regulatory scheme administered by DCGI. Under such scheme permission to conduct clinical trial is granted to Sponsor the pharmaceutical company that owns the molecule. No mechanism exists or has existed by which Clinical Research Organisation itself can apply for or be granted DCGI approval independently - CRO appointed by Sponsor as agent to execute and coordinate the trial that DCGI has approved. Requiring independent institutional approval to CRO would impose condition that no CRO could ever satisfy rendering the exemption impossible to perform which offends the legal principle that law does not require performance of impossibility - A CRO conducting trials under written agreements with DCGI-approved Sponsors and registered with Clinical Trial Registry of India operates under DCGI-approved protocols and stands approved through the regulatory mechanism to conduct such trials - Appellant conducting trials under tripartite agreements bearing DCGI-approved protocol numbers and stood registered with Clinical Trial Registry, notwithstanding lack of separate institutional approval, qualifiy as entity ‘approved to conduct clinical trials’ within meaning of the exemption. The regulatory scheme itself supports this interpretation and reading exemption to require free standing institutional approval that regulator does not issue would be inconsistent with scheme and practice - The technical testing and analysis service rendered by appellant is exempt from service tax under Notification 11/2007-ST for period up to 30.06.2012 and under Entry 7 of Notification 25/2012-ST for period thereafter – The appeal is allowed - Service Tax - Taxability of forfeited employee deposits under commercial training or coaching service - Whether amounts forfeited from employees for premature resignation before completion of minimum agreed service period constitute consideration for commercial training or coaching service taxable under pre-negative list definition of Section 65(105)(zzc) or constitute non-taxable compensation for breach of employment contract - HELD - Commercial training or coaching service as defined under Section 65(105)(zzc) presupposes a commercial training or coaching centre rendering training or coaching to trainee for fee or other consideration paid for imparting skill or knowledge - The relationship between appellant and employees from whom deposits were recovered was relationship of employer and employee under contract of service not that of commercial training centre and external trainee. Any training appellant gave to employees was given in employer capacity for its own business purposes and not as service rendered by commercial training or coaching centre to trainee - Deposit forfeited upon employee resignation constitutes compensation for breach of employee's undertaking to serve for minimum period not fee charged for imparting skill or knowledge. No taxable service is rendered by employer in collecting or retaining such security deposit. Amount does not answer description of consideration for any taxable service and falls outside scope of commercial training or coaching service for pre-negative list period. Even for period after 01.07.2012 when negative list regime came into force the amount would not constitute consideration for declared service under Section 66E(e) which covers agreements to refrain from act tolerate act or situation or do act for consideration - The demand for commercial training or coaching service is not sustainable as amounts represent non-taxable compensation for breach of employment contract - Extended period of limitation - Whether extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) is properly invoked when Department was aware of and had inquired into precise nature of Appellant's clinical research activities as early as 2010 and Appellant had consistently maintained and disclosed its belief in exemption entitlement - HELD - Suppression contemplated by proviso to Section 73(1) is suppression from Department and it is difficult to conceive how Appellant can be said to have suppressed from Department a fact Department had itself elicited and was investigating several years before SCN. Appellant's omission to register itself or file returns proceeded from consistently stated belief that its testing services stood exempt under Notification 11/2007-ST a belief resting on tenable interpretation of that notification. Interpretation of fiscal exemption that is open to genuine debate honestly entertained and disclosed the moment Department made inquiry is antithesis of deliberate positive act of concealment that law requires before extraordinary period of five years can be invoked - The extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) is unsustainable - Imposition of penalties under Sections 76 78 and 77 Finance Act 1994 - Whether penalties under Sections 76 78 and 77 Finance Act 1994 can be imposed and sustained when principal service tax demands themselves are found to be unsustainable and ingredients of fraud collusion wilful mis-statement suppression or intent to evade are absent - HELD - Where principal demand itself is found to be unsustainable due to misinterpretation of exemption provision or erroneous denial of exemption entitlement the penalty resting on that very demand cannot survive - Where Appellant maintained tenable interpretation of exemption provision honestly entertained and disclosed to Department when inquiry was made and no positive act of suppression or intent to evade is established the penalties presupposing such ingredients cannot be sustained. Penalties for violations of Sections 69 70 and related provisions under Section 77 are procedural in nature but where principal substantive liability is found to be not due the penalties consequential upon that liability also cannot be upheld - The penalties imposed under Sections 76 78 77(1)(a) and 77(2) are not sustainable and set aside.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Critical issues: ITC on...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?