9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29.04.2016, by which, the first respondent confirmed the demand for Service Tax, by classifying the nature of service rendered by the petitioner under the Health Checkup and Treatment Services as defined under section 65(105)(zzzzo) of the Finance Act, 1994, apart from demanding interest and levying penalty. 3. Under normal circumstances, the Writ Petition will not be maintainable because the Order-in-Original was passed by the first respondent, and as against the same, the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy of filing an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. However, in the light of the pure question of law, which is raised by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to entertain t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hy the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act should not be invoked to demand service tax beyond the normal period and as to why service tax amount cannot be demanded from the petitioner payable for the service rendered under Health Check up and Treatment Services for the period from 01.07.2010 to 30.04.2011, apart from proposing to demand interests and levy penalty. 6. The petitioner submitted a detailed objection dated 5.7.2015. The first and foremost objection raised by the petitioner is that the KKT is a Welfare Scheme introduced by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the benefit of those who cannot afford costly medical treatment and that will not construed as an Insurance Scheme, but a Welfare Scheme. The term Insurance used in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns raised by the petitioner. While rendering his findings, from paragraph No.14 onwards, committed a small error in framing the question to be decided, by stating that the issue to be decided is as to whether the service tax is payable on the entire amount received by the service provider or the amount retained by the service provider. However, the petitioner s contention is that they are not liable to be brought under the Service Tax Net and it appears that at no point of time, there was any concession availed by the petitioner on the quantum of the amount which has to be considered for the purpose of Health Service Tax. 8. The learned Additional Commissioner has made an elaborate exercise by referring to the statutory provisions and in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been the first endeavour of the adjudicating authority, since the petitioner raised a preliminary objection by stating that KKT is a Welfare Scheme and not an Insurance policy, no approval was obtained from IRDA and therefore, they will not fall within the definition of "Health Check up and Treatment Services". Thus, the primordial question would be whether while implementing the Welfare Scheme propounded by the State Government, if the work is entrusted to STAR would that by itself make it an Insurance Policy. The second aspect which has to be seen as to who is the insured, the specific case of the petitioner is that the recipient is the public, who are below the poverty line and there is no policy drawn between the beneficiary and STAR or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
