Madras High Court
Sree Balaji Medical College & ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2021
W.P.Nos.22677 to 22683 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.22677 to 22683 of 2012
and
M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2012
in W.P.Nos.22678 to 22683 of 2012
Sree Balaji Medical College & Hospital,
No.7, Works Road,
Chrompet,
Chennai – 600 044,
Represented by its Dean
Dr.S.Balakrishnan .. Petitioner
(in all W.Ps)
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Commercial Taxes and
Registration Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT),
Enforcement South,
Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Tambaram – I Assessment Circle,
Chennai – 600 045. .. Respondents
(in all W.Ps)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.22677 to 22683 of 2012
Prayer in W.P.No.22677 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the
professional services rendered by the Doctors of petitioner's Medical
College Hospital under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films,
CT Scan Films, MRI Films and supply of medical gases and implants are
during the course of treatment to patients would not amounts to transfer of
property in goods or an incident of contract of service under the scope of
“works contract” as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India
and under Section 2(33) of the TN VAT Act, 2006.
(In all the cases):
For Petitioner : Mr.Manoharan Sundaram
for Ms.G.Sumitha
For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.22677 of 2012 is filed for Declaration to declare that the
professional services rendered by the Doctors of petitioner's Medical
College Hospital under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films,
CT Scan Films, MRI Films and supply of medical gases and implants are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.22677 to 22683 of 2012
during the course of treatment to patients would not amounts to transfer of
property in goods or an incident of contract of service under the scope of
“works contract” as per Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution of India
and under Section 2(33) of the TN VAT Act, 2006.
2.W.P.Nos.22678 to 22683 of 2012 are filed to call for the
impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 27.04.2012 and quash the
same and consequently restraining the 3rd Respondent herein from levying
and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT
films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied
medical services to the patients at the petitioner Medical College Hospital.
3.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioners
fairly made a submission that the issues raised in all these Writ Petitions
were already adjudicated by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions and a
judgment was pronounced on 28.05.2020 in W.P.Nos.2982 to 2987 of 2012,
etc., and batch. This Court considered the previous all these statutes as well
as the issued raised on merits and passed the following orders:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.22677 to 22683 of 2012
“200.In my view, the observation of the
Hon?be Supreme Court in BSNL versus Union of
India (2006) 3 SCC 1 and the four decision cannot
be apply for the following reasons:
i.In BSNL versus Union of India
(2006) 3 SCC 1, the Hon?ble
Supreme Court was not concerned
with ?”works contract?”;
ii.The Court was concerned with ?
transfer of right to use of goods
which is different with ?”works
contract”?;
iii.The obiter dicta or the observation
in para 44 of and the illustration in
BSNL versus Union of India (2006)
3 SCC 1 cannot be construed as a
binding ratio for the reason given in
this order;
iv.The four decisions of the different
High Court which were cited on
behalf of the petitioners though have
a persuasive value are not binding on
this Court particularly in the light of
the fact that the Courts did not
examine the issue from the
perspective of the definition of
“?works contract”? in the respective
tax enactments. They merely
discussed the issue from the
perspective definition of ?”sale”?
simplicitor;
v.Therefore, the ratio in the four
decisions do not have a binding ratio
for this Court to follow them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.22677 to 22683 of 2012
vi.Since the dispute pertains to the
assessment years 2006 onwards
considerable time has lapsed, the
petitioners are directed to file their
respective replies within two months
from the date of receipt of this Order;
vii.Petitioner shall co-operate with
the respondent assessing officer by
furnishing all records that are
available with them within 30 days of
this order.
viii.The respondent shall exclude the
value of medicine and other
consultation charges while
determining the taxable value. The
demand shall be confirmed to the
value of prosthetics and charges
incurred towards X-ray, C.T.Scan,
PET Scan etc.
ix.The respondent assessing officer
shall hear out the petitioners
separately and pass appropriate order
on merits all the other issues raised in
the respective notices impugned in
these writ petitions;
x.The respondent assessing officer
shall keep the observations contained
herein while passing final orders in
response to the impugned notices;
xi.If the Covid-19 pandemic
continues, the respondent may hear
the petitioners through video
conference and pass such order
within a period of 6 months from the
date of this order;
xii.It is for the petitioner to approach
the Government independently and
request the Government for a suitable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.22677 to 22683 of 2012
retrospective relaxation by way of
exemption for hospital/medical
services rendered by them in the light
of the fact that the same
activity/transaction appears to have
been exempted under the GST
Regime from July 2017.
201. These writ petitions stand disposed
of with the above observation. No Cost.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.”
4.In view of the said directions, all these Writ Petitions are
disposed of and the directions issued in the judgment cited supra is made
applicable to the present Writ Petitions. Accordingly, they are at liberty to
redress their grievances. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
18.06.2021
krk
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.22677 to 22683 of 2012
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Commercial Taxes and
Registration Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT),
Enforcement South,
Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Tambaram – I Assessment Circle,
Chennai – 600 045.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.22677 to 22683 of 2012
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
krk
W.P.Nos.22677 to 22683 of 2012
18.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
