Service Tax
TRT-2025-
Cestat Chandigarh
Date:-05-04-24
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date – 05 April 2024
Parties: S J S Healthcare Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ludhiana
Facts –
- The Appellant, S J S Healthcare Limited, provides healthcare services to the patients who come at its hospital either by employee doctors employed at payrolls of the appellant or by associating with various specialist visiting doctors
- The appellant who raises the bill for medical/healthcare services to the patients, and not the doctors. The visiting doctors are not allowed to undertake their independent practice/profession by using its infrastructure.
- A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax alleging the service provided by the appellant falls under the category of “Business Support Services”.
Issue –
- Whether the providing infrastructure and administrative facilities to the visiting doctors falls under the category of “Business Support Services”?
Order –
- The Tribunal observed that the doctors are working with the appellant's hospital and it is the visiting doctors who, in fact, are service providers to the appellant's hospital as the appellant's hospital is availing the services of such visiting doctors, for which they are paid by the said hospital as per the agreement and not the vice versa. Further, the appellant's hospital, being a service recipient, is deducting TDS in terms of Section 194 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the remuneration paid to the visiting doctors.
- Further the issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee by various decisions. In the case of CCE & ST, Panchkula vs. Alchemist Hospital Limited and it was held by the Tribunal that “respondent-assessee were not provided any Business Support Service to the consultants/doctors or patient, therefore, no service tax is payable by respondent-assessee under the category of Business Support Service.”
- In the present case, there is no suppression on the part of the appellant to invoke the extended period of limitation and the Revenue has failed to establish ingredients of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules with an intent to evade the payment of tax as provided in Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to the service tax also.
- The Appeal is hence allowed.
Download Case Law
