9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELHI] relate to the period before and after July 01, 2012. The Tribunal, after a consideration of the conditions prescribed in the agreement, held that the arrangement was for joint benefit of both the parties with shared obligations, responsibilities and benefits and, therefore, no service was provided by the hospital to the doctors. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner - Appeal of Revenue dismissed. - SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50735 OF 2018 - FINAL ORDER No. 50637/2023 - Dated:- 28-4-2023 - HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA , PRESIDENT And HON'BLE Ms. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Appellant : Dr. Radhey Tallo , Authorised Representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... needs to be noted that earlier a show cause notice dated April 22, 2013 for the period of April 01, 2007 to March 31, 2013 and show cause notice dated May 22, 2013 for the period April 01, 2012 to March 31, 2013 were issued to the respondent and these two show cause notices were adjudicated upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 31.03.2016, which order was assailed by the respondent in Service Tax Appeal No. 52193 of 2016 [ M/s. Maharaja Agrasen Hospital Charitable Trust vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi III]. This appeal was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated January 02, 2023 relying upon a decision of the Tribunal in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Ors. Vs CCE, Delhi I and ors [2018 (11) GSTL 427] as also a subsequent dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne by them. In some cases, there is a provision for treating patients from low economic background without any financial benefits. On careful consideration of various terms and conditions and the scope of arrangement, we are of the considered view that such arrangement are for joint benefit of both the parties with shared obligations, responsibilities and benefits. The agreements do not specify the specific nature or list of facilities which can be categorized as infrastructural support to the doctors. The revenue model, as agreed upon between the contracting parties also, did not refer to any consideration attributable to such infrastructural support service. 6. The proceedings by the Revenue, initiated against the appellant hospital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services of the doctors for providing health care service. For this, they are paying the doctors. The retained money out of the amount charged from the patients is necessarily also for such health care services. The patient paid the full amount to the appellant hospitals and received health care services. For providing such services, the appellants entered into an agreement, as discussed above, with various consulting doctors. We do not find any business support services in such arrangement. xxxx xxxx xxxx 9. Under negative list regime w.e.f. 01.07.2012, the health care services are exempt from service tax. Earlier the health care services were only taxed for specified category of hospitals and for specified patients during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will defeat the exemption provided to the health care services by clinical 10 establishments. Admittedly, the health care services are provided by the clinical establishments by engaging consultant doctors in terms of the arrangement as discussed above. For such services, amount is collected from the patients. The same is shared by the clinical establishment with the doctors. There is no legal justification to tax the share of clinical establishment on the ground that they have supported the commerce or business of doctors by providing infrastructure. We find that such assertion is neither factually nor legally sustainable. (emphasis supplied) 6. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was accepted by the Department. The subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
