2022 (11) TMI 46 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - healthcare services - Event Management Service - applicability of Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 - HELD THAT - It is undisputed that the show cause notice demanded service tax from the respondent under the head event management services . There is no demand under the head healthcare services . The Principal Commissioner has, in the impugned order, examined the nature of the services provided by the respondent has come to the conclusion that provision of MMUs by the respondent would qualify as healthcare services and NOT as event management services . This finding of the Commissioner has not been disputed in the appeal by the Revenue. After concluding that the respondent has not provided event management services , the Principal Commissioner has examined the taxability under the head healthcare services and came to the conclusion that they were exempted by virtue of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Revenue s contention is that the respondent does not qualify for the exemption under this notification because it is neither a clinical establishment nor an authorized medical practitioner nor a para-medic and the exemption has not covered all services rendered in relation to healthcare services but specifically the healthcare services provided by the aforesaid three noticees/persons. Since an exemption notification must be strictly construed against the person who claims it, the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification. The exemption notification will be relevant if tax liability can be fastened on the respondent in the first place. In the absence of any notice under the category of healthcare services no tax liability can be fastened on the respondent. Therefore, the demand under the head event management services made in the show cause notice has been correctly dropped in the impugned order. The Principal Commissioner should not have even considered fastening the liability under the head healthcare services because no notice was served upon the respondent. The appeal is rejected and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the demand stands dropped for the reason that no notice was served upon the respondent under the category of healthcare services.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 regarding healthcare services exemption.
2. Taxability of services provided by the respondent under "event management services" or "healthcare services."

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order-in-original passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Indore. The dispute arose from a show cause notice demanding service tax from the respondent for providing Medical Mobile Units (MMUs) to M/s Jagran Solutions. The Principal Commissioner found the services to be "Health Care Services," exempted under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Revenue contended that the respondent did not qualify for the exemption as they were not clinical establishments, authorized medical practitioners, or para-medics. The Revenue argued that the exemption did not cover all healthcare services, only those provided by the mentioned entities. However, the Principal Commissioner concluded that the respondent's services fell under "healthcare services" and not "event management services" as claimed in the show cause notice.

The Revenue's appeal reiterated that the respondent was not entitled to the exemption under the notification. The respondent's counsel argued that the notification was correctly applied and that the show cause notice did not demand service tax under "healthcare services." The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice specifically demanded tax under "event management services," not healthcare services. The Principal Commissioner's finding that the services provided were healthcare services was not disputed by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that since no notice was served under healthcare services, no tax liability could be imposed on the respondent under that category. Therefore, the demand under event management services was correctly dropped in the impugned order. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that the Principal Commissioner should not have considered imposing liability under healthcare services without serving a notice. Consequently, the demand was dropped as no notice was served under the category of healthcare services.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, modifying the impugned order to drop the demand as no notice was served under healthcare services. The judgment emphasized the importance of serving a notice under the correct category to establish tax liability, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondent.