Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2017 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 672 - HC - Service TaxHealth and fitness services - In the order impugned in the writ petition, the 2nd respondent has not disputed the claim of the petitioner that they have registered themselves under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act as a charitable institution. But what the 2nd respondent did was to go by the definition of the expression charitable institution found in the definition part of the notification dated 20.06.2012 - distinction between fitness centres or unisex saloons - Held that: - the petitioner satisfies both the limbs indicated in sub-clause (a) and (b) of Clause (i) of para-2(k). The petitioner is allegedly indulging in public awareness and the petitioner is also indulging in the spreading of public health by way of care and counselling. Therefore, even on the basis of the findings recorded in para-30.2 it is not possible to conclude that the activities carried on by the petitioner would not fall within para-2(k) of the exemption notification. An important aspect to be taken note of is that under Serial No.2 of the exemption notification health care services by a clinical establishment is exempted from payment of service tax. Any institution, which provides services by way of diagnosis or treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy comes within the definition of health care services. That the petitioner renders such services is not in doubt even from the findings recorded by the 2nd respondent herein - Where the 2nd respondent appears to have gone wrong is that the 2nd respondent has taken the services provided by the petitioner for the wellbeing of an individual, as something out of the purview of the diagnosis or treatment. The 2nd respondent has fallen into an error in thinking so, due to a fundamental misconception that is normally prevalent in society. While Allopathic system of medicine is only for diagnosis and treatment of illness, many of the indigenous system of medicines, seek to prevent rather than prescribe. An exemption notification, which is understood by the respondents to confer a benefit upon the clinical establishments, cannot be made inapplicable to a holistic health care institution such as the petitioner herein, as the same would tantamount to killing our indigenous system of health and well being - A system of medicine which focused mainly on healthy living and not merely a prolonged existence cannot be denied the benefit of the exemption notification on the basis of a misconception that a clinical establishment is one that would treat people after they fall ill and not one which will prevent people from falling ill. There is a very clear distinction between fitness centres or unisex saloons, which provide different types of services to the customers. Their focus is mostly on beauty rather than on maintenance of health. The 2nd respondent appears to have fallen into an error in mixing up both - the case of the petitioner would fall clearly within the purview of the exemption notification, the 2nd respondent has made a distinction, which did not exist except in his mind and in the paper. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|