2019 (2) TMI 88 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of Mistake application - the said plea of the appellant being that the hospital is a charitable institution, the said observation made by the Tribunal is apparently an error - Held that - There are no doubt with regard to the conclusion made by the Tribunal. If hospital charges fee for treatment, the same would make the building being used for commercial purpose. In cases where mere registration fees are collected and treatment is completely free, they would come within the ambit of non-commercial entity. However, this depends upon facts of each case and the Tribunal after examining the facts of the case has made such observation and directed for re-examination of these facts on this issue. There are no error apparent on the face of record that requires interference - ROM Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the construction of a hospital building run by a charitable institution is liable for service tax as a commercial establishment.
2. Whether the Tribunal's observation regarding the hospital charging a fee for treatment making it a commercial building is erroneous.
3. Whether the demand for cleaning services rendered to charitable hospitals upheld by the Tribunal requires interference.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that a hospital building run by a charitable institution should not be subject to service tax as a non-commercial entity. The Tribunal, in para 6.1 of the impugned order, discussed this issue and concluded that charging a fee for treatment would make the hospital a commercial establishment. The appellant argued that this observation was an error as the hospital is a charitable institution. However, the Tribunal held that charging a fee for treatment does make the building commercial, unless treatment is completely free, depending on the specific facts of each case. The Tribunal directed a re-examination of the facts on this issue.

2. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's conclusion that charging a fee for treatment makes the hospital a commercial building. The appellant cited decisions stating that mere charging of fees does not necessarily make a hospital a commercial entity. However, the Tribunal found no error in its conclusion, stating that charging a fee for treatment does indicate a commercial purpose for the building. The Tribunal emphasized that the determination depends on the specific circumstances of each case, and upheld its observation for re-examination based on the facts presented.

3. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's applications seeking rectification of alleged errors in the demand for cleaning services rendered to charitable hospitals. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision required interference, but the Tribunal found no error apparent on the face of the record that warranted intervention. The Tribunal stated that an error apparent on the face of the record should be clear and not necessitate extensive argumentation, and in this case, the Tribunal's findings did not meet this criterion. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the applications.