Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 388 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - Business Support service or not - privity of contract - doctors appointed on contractual basis, - collection of consultation fees/charges from the patients (out of the income so generated from that account, certain amount is retained by the appellants) - period from 01.10.2006 to 31.03.2014 - HELD THAT:- The arrangements made are for joint benefit of both the parties with shared obligations, responsibilities etc. The agreements between the parties do not specify the nature or list of facilities, which can be categorized as provision of infrastructural support imparted by the appellants to the contractual doctors. Further, the revenue model, as agreed upon between the contracting parties also, did not refer to any consideration attributable to such infrastructural support service as alleged by the department. Further, there is no privity of contract between the doctors and the patients and that the later is contractually obliged to settle the bills raised by the appellants hospital towards provision of the medical services - the service tax demand cannot be fastened on the appellants. On looking at another angle, it cannot be said that the appellants hospital is the recipient of service provided by the doctors inasmuch as the appellants actually availed the professional services of the doctors, for which they pay certain amount from the payment received from the patients. Hence, as a recipient of service, the liability to pay service tax cannot be fastened on the appellant. Furthermore, it is not the case of Revenue that the patients treated in the appellants hospital are having contractual relationship with the doctors and that the doctors raised the professional bills on them - the appellants are providing business support service to the doctors. There are no merits in the impugned orders, insofar as the activities of the appellants were treated as taxable service and consequently, the adjudged demands were confirmed. Further, there was no scope or occasion on the part of the adjudicating authority to rely upon or interpret the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the appellants in this case inasmuch as the impugned order was passed in the month of June 2016 - appeal allowed.
|