2018 (4) TMI 1034 - AT - Service Tax

Non-payment of service tax - cleaning services - extended period of limitation - Held that - these requires closure examination with relevant basic documents to arrive at a finding whether or not the recipient of service who is owing and managing the said building are to be considered as commercial or a non-commercial entity. Admittedly the buildings are used for running educational institutions recognized by law - irrespective of the status of the entity managing such educational institutions the nature of the building has to be considered. The building being used by a recognized educational institution cannot be considered as of commercial in nature. Demand restricted for normal period - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order of Commissioner of Central Excise, liability to service tax for cleaning services provided to hospital buildings, consideration of hospital buildings as commercial or non-commercial entities, appeal by Revenue on services provided to school buildings, interpretation of tax entry for cleaning services.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by both the Revenue and the assessee against the same order of the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding the liability to service tax for cleaning services provided to various establishments, specifically focusing on hospital and school buildings.

2. The original authority held that the appellants providing specialized mechanical cleaning services to certain hospital buildings were liable to service tax. The assessee contested this decision, arguing that the hospital buildings were charitable trust hospitals with no profit motive, and therefore should not be considered as commercial buildings subject to service tax.

3. The Revenue, on the other hand, appealed against the adjudicating authority's decision to drop the services provided to school buildings from the tax liability, emphasizing that the status of the recipient of service is more relevant than the nature of the building, which should determine the tax liability.

4. The Tribunal considered both appeals and noted that the nature of the building and the status of the entity managing it are crucial factors in determining the tax liability for cleaning services. They emphasized that a hospital charging fees for treatment can be considered a commercial establishment, making the building commercial in nature, while a building used by a recognized educational institution should not be considered commercial.

5. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the issue involved interpretation, and that they had a bonafide belief that hospital buildings should not be covered by the tax entry for cleaning services. Therefore, any tax liability determined by the original authority based on factual findings would be restricted to the normal period of limitation with no penalty imposed.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of both appeals, upholding the decision that the hospital buildings could be considered commercial establishments subject to service tax, while the school buildings used by recognized educational institutions should not be considered commercial for tax purposes based on the nature of the building and the status of the entity managing it.