Page 186 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

432 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
8.7 The applicant has taken the support of the following judgements
and rulings in support of his claims :
(a) Order of the Advance Ruling Authority of Maharashtra in the case
of Behr-Hella Thermocontrol India Pvt. Ltd.,
(b) Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. CESTAT, Aurangabad [2016 (42) S.T.R. 306
(Tri. - Mumbai)] - wherein it is held that the performance of testing
services provided by the foreign based entity where the testing is
conducted in the foreign laboratory is entirely outside India and
hence the appellant is not liable to service tax.
(c) Total Oil India Ltd. v. CESTAT, Mumbai [2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 209 (Tri. -
Mumbai)]
9. In view of all the above, the applicant argues that the tests conducted
by the laboratory to identify and list potential donors is an integral step in the
entire process of treatment of an illness i.e. blood cancer and other blood disor-
ders and does not have any other use/purpose and hence the said laboratory
HLA testing services would be classifiable as health care services provided by a
clinical establishment and therefore exempt from taxes leviable thereon.
Further, the applicant argues that the services being provided by LSL DE
would be provided outside India after making the goods physically available to
the supplier of services who is located outside India and hence the place of sup-
ply of services should be outside India under Section 13(3) of the IGST Act.
Under both circumstances, the applicant shall not be required to pay tax-
es under reverse charge mechanism. Further, considering that DKMS-BMST is a
not for profit organisation, a levy of IGST on such procurement of service would
result into accumulation of input tax credit and a break in the value chain and
therefore, the said services should not be taxable in the hands of DKMS-BMST.
Personal hearing :/Proceedings held on 9-1-2020 and 10-3-2020
10. Sri Ravi Banthia, Chartered Accountant and the duly authorised
representative of the applicant, appeared for personal hearing proceedings on 9-
1-2020 and sought an adjournment to modify the questions as the same were not
clear. Later, on 10-3-2020, he appeared and submitted the revised questions be-
fore this authority and reiterated the submissions made as narrated earlier.
Findings & Discussion
11. We have considered the submissions made by the Applicant in their
application for advance ruling as well as the submissions made by the Learned
Representative at the time of the personal hearing. We have also considered the
issues involved, on which advance ruling is sought by the applicant, and rele-
vant facts.
11.1 At the outset, we would like to state that the provisions of both the
CGST Act and the KGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. There-
fore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a refer-
ence to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under
the KGST Act.
11.2 The issues involved in the above case are whether the HLA Typing
Services obtained by the applicant from LSL DE falls under the scope of “health
care services by a clinical establishment”?

GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  186