Case Details: Epigeneres Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 32 Centax 54 (A.A.R.-GST-Mah.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Shri D.P. Gojamgunde & Ms Priya Jadhav, Members
Facts of the Case
The applicant sought an advance ruling on whether its experimental cancer diagnostic tests, which use next-generation sequencing and algorithm-based technology, qualify as ‘healthcare services’ exempt from GST under Entry 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The company’s tests, still in the developmental stage and not validated by Indian medical regulatory bodies, are designed to detect the presence or risk of cancer through blood-based RNA analysis. The applicant argued that their laboratory and diagnostic services should be classified as healthcare services by a clinical establishment and thus be GST-exempt.
The applicant contended that their diagnostic services fall within the definition of ‘healthcare services’ and that their laboratory qualifies as a clinical establishment. They argued that their activities—though innovative and research-driven—assist in the diagnosis of disease and should be classified under SAC 999316, making them eligible for GST exemption.
The jurisdictional officer, however, argued that the applicant’s tests are not validated by regulatory authorities like CDSCO or ICMR, are still experimental, and are more akin to research and development activities. Therefore, the officer asserted, these services should be classified under SAC 998111 (research and experimental development in natural sciences), which does not qualify for GST exemption.
AAR Held
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Maharashtra, held in favour of the revenue. It found that the applicant’s cancer diagnostic tests are still in the developmental stage and have not been validated or approved by Indian medical regulatory bodies. As such, these tests do not meet the definition of ‘healthcare services’ under the relevant GST notification. The AAR concluded that the applicant’s activities are in the nature of research and experimental development, appropriately classifiable under SAC 998111, and are not eligible for GST exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The application for exemption was thus rejected, and GST was held to be applicable on the services provided.
List of Cases Cited
- DKMS BMST Foundation India, In re — 2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 417 (A.A.R. – GST – Kar.) — Referred [Para 2.14]
- J C Genetic India (P.) Ltd., In re — 2019 (23) G.S.T.L. 509 (A.A.R. – GST) — Referred [Para 2.14]
- Medivision Scan and Diagnostic Research Centre (P) Ltd., In re — 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 788 (A.A.R. – GST) — Referred [Para 2.14]
- Sayre Therapuetics (P.) Ltd., In re — 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 224 (A.A.R. – GST) — Referred [Para 2.14]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.6.2017,
