Amendments clarifying tax exemptions for ICU services are retrospective, relieving hospitals from GST on such charges based on legislative intent.

ORDER :

1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"i. Issue a Writ/Direction/Order in the nature of CERTIORARI, quashing/setting aside the impugned Order dated 25.02.2025 under Section 107(11) bearing GST AP No.287/2024-25 passed by the 2^nd Respondent (Annexure A).

ii. Issue as Writ/Direction/Order in the nature of CERTIORARI, quashing/setting aside the impugned Adjudication Order dated 28.03.2024 bearing No. ACCT (Audit) 1.7/GST-ADJ-33/23-24 (Annexure B).

iii. Issue as Writ/Direction/Order in the nature of CERTIORARI, quashing/setting aside the impugned Summary of Order and Order under Section 73 both bearing reference no. ZD290324079816V dated28.03.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 1 (Annexure B1 and B2).

iv. Pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity."

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority at Annexure-B dated 28.03.2024 and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority in order to point out that despite having come to the conclusion that the petitioner was involved in the activity of conducting clinical trials, which would amount to export of services and in terms of Section 13 (2) of the IGST Act since the place of recipient of the services was situated outside the territory of India and (3)(a) of the IGST Act was not applicable and in view of the Notification No.04/2019 - Integrated Tax dated 30.09.2019 issued by the Central Government, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have come to the erroneous conclusion that the said notification was prospective in nature and application and was not retrospective without appreciating that the said notification was pursuant to the 37^th GST Council Meeting conducted/held on 20.09.2019, wherein the said issue as regards export of services in the pharmaceutical sector, including services in relation to clinical trials has been clarified, thereby indicating that the said notification clarifying the nature of services was only clarificatory and consequently the same is retrospective in nature, application and operation and as such, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the adjudication proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner deserve to be quashed.

4. Per contra, the learned AGA would support the impugned orders and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have taken note of the aforesaid notification dated 30.09.2019, wherein it is specifically declared and clarified by the Central Government that the place of supply of services, including the nature of services as provided by the petitioner by way of the clinical trials, shall be the location of the recipient of such services, subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact as borne out from the material on record, that the place of recipient of the services provided by the petitioner is in USA, which is outside the territory of India and in a non-taxable territory and consequently, by virtue of the aforesaid notification, the petitioner could not have been saddled with the liability to pay GST.

6. Insofar as the findings recorded by the respondents that the said notification is prosp