2019 (3) TMI 1380 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - health services - period from 01.07.2010 to 30.04.2011 - scope of Section 65(105) (zzzzo) of Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - The requirement in the definition of said service is that the treatment is provided by service provider and payment is made by insurance company directly to the service provider. then it satisfies the definition of health services provided under Section 65(105)(zzzzo) of Finance Act, 1994 - the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. ARVINTH HOSPITALS VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE 2016 (11) TMI 238 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has remanded the matter to the respondent before them to consider the entire issue afresh. The appellant during the relevant period had provided said services and therefore there is no reason for us to interfere with the impugned order - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax for providing health services covered under Section 65(105)(zzzzo) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Whether the payment made by the insurance company directly to the hospital satisfies the definition of health services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a hospital providing health services, received an amount from an insurance company for services rendered to individuals covered under a health insurance scheme. The Revenue demanded Service Tax from the appellant for the same, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant contended that since the services were provided under a government scheme, Service Tax should not be levied. The Tribunal noted the definition of taxable service under Section 65(105)(zzzzo) of the Finance Act, 1994, which includes services provided by hospitals to individuals covered by health insurance schemes. The Tribunal upheld the demand for Service Tax, as the payment for services was made directly to the hospital by the insurance company, satisfying the definition of health services.

2. The appellant relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in a similar case, arguing that the payment by the insurance company should exempt them from Service Tax liability. However, the Tribunal observed that as per the definition of health services under the Finance Act, it is essential that the treatment is provided by the service provider and payment is made directly by the insurance company to the service provider. The Tribunal also noted that the Madras High Court had remanded a similar case to reconsider the issue. Based on these considerations, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had indeed provided the specified health services during the relevant period, and thus, upheld the imposition of Service Tax. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the Tribunal.