9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt entered between the appellant and the hospital. The said mess was required for the purpose of providing meal and other eatables to the patients of the Hospital. This clause of the agreement makes it amply clear that the mess was an integral part of the hospital establishment only. A perusal of the notification makes it clear that such services are exempt only if no air conditioning or central hearing is provided. In the instant case, it is also noted that the learned counsel has submitted that the hospital was air-conditioned, and the mess being setup for in-patient services, would form a part of the hospital establishment only. The burden of proving the eligibility to an exemption notification rests on the taxpayer claiming the exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the scrutiny of the ST-3 return during the period of July, 2012 to September, 2012, it was observed that the exemption claimed by the appellant as per Sr. No. 2 of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 was not applicable on the ground that the Sr. No. 2 of the said Notification provide exemption to 'Health care services' provided by a clinical establishment or Para Medics. Show cause notice No. 35/AC/Adj/ST/BPL-1/2013-14 dated 10.09.2014 was issued to the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 109/AC/ST/Adj/BPL/2015-16 dated 30.10.2015 confirmed the service tax demand of Rs. 1, 10, 316/- along with interest. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed an appeal before the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hospital, was totally irrelevant. Further, by not considering the benefit of exemption of Sr. No. 19 of the Notification No: 25/2012-ST by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not just and proper for the reason that without the facility of air conditioning, no hospital can run. However, the premises where the appellant served food has no facility of Air conditioning and this fact has not at all considered either the Adjudicating authority or the Appellate authority. Learned counsel submitted that on the contrary, the exemption was denied by the appellate authority on the sole ground that the part of the hospital premises having the air conditioning facility. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the agreement which mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant have not been able to prove their case. Hence, onus was on the appellant to rebut the presumption/ finding given by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and to prove their case that they are covered by the said Exemption Notification. In support of his submission, ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- * Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Company - 2018 (361) ELT 577 (S.C.) * Inox Wind Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida - 2020 (35) GSTL 123 (Tri.-All.) 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Authorized Representative for the department. 6. The issue to be determined is whether the appellant is covered under serial no 19 of notification no. 25/2012 dated 20- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interpreted in a strict manner. In this context, we take note in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai versus Dilip Kumar and Company - 2018 [(361) ELT 577 (S.C.)] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "41. After thoroughly examining the various precedents some of which were cited before us and after giving our anxious consideration, we would be more than justified to conclude and also compelled to hold that every taxing statute including, charging, computation and exemption clause (at the threshold stage) should be interpreted strictly. Further, in case of ambiguity in a charging provisions, the benefit must necessarily go in favour of subject/assessee, but the same is not true for an exemption notification w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is ambiguity in the subject of tax, that is to say, who are the persons or things liable to pay tax, and whether the revenue has established conditions before raising and justifying a demand. Similar is the case in roping all persons within the tax net, in which event the State is to prove the liability of the persons, as may arise within the strict language of the law. There cannot be any implied concept either in identifying the subject of the tax or person liable to pay tax. That is why it is often said that subject is not to be taxed, unless the words of the statute unambiguously impose a tax on him, that one has to look merely at the words clearly stated and that there is no room for any intendment nor presumption as to tax. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
