Case Law Details
MedGenome Labs Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
As per Rule 3 of POPS Rules, the place of provision of service shall be the location of the recipient of service. In the present case, the location of the recipient of service is in abroad. Therefore, the service deemed to have been provided in abroad at the place of service recipient. In exception to the above Rule 3, the place of provision of service on the basis of performance is provided under Rule 4; according to which, if the services are provided in respect of goods that are required to be made physically available by the recipient of service to the provider of service or person acting on behalf of the provider of service in order to provide the service, the place of provision of service shall be the location of the services which are actually performed.
In the present case, it is beyond any doubt that the service recipient has not physically made available any goods to the appellant being a service provider. The service recipient has no connection in any manner with regard to the collection of samples. It is the appellant who on their own procured the samples from the hospitals and conduct the analytical tests.
The appellant have only providing the test reports in electronic or web form to the recipient of service i.e. their foreign client. Therefore, the specific condition under Rule 4 that the service should be provided in respect of goods which must be physically provided by the recipient of service to the provider is not satisfied.
Moreover, we also do not agree with the Revenue that the sample on which the test was conducted is goods. In the present case, the samples are blood and tissue extracted from the human body. The appellant have neither purchased the said goods nor is saleable. The appellant has paid the cost only for the service for extraction of the samples. Therefore, the sample, in our considered view, cannot be treated as saleable goods. For this reason also, the condition of Rule 4 is not satisfied. In view of the above, the place of provision of service is clearly the location of the recipient of service, which in the present case is country of appellant’s clients.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
