Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 46 - CESTAT NEW DELHILevy 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.
|