2019 (6) TMI 124 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax liabilities and nature of services remanded for fresh adjudication

M/s Clinic Dermatech Versus Commissioner of Service Tax (Adj.)

The Tribunal remanded both issues for fresh adjudication to verify the service tax liabilities and the nature of services provided by the appellant. The ... Demand of Service tax - Renting of immovable property services - HELD THAT:- Admittedly proprietary concern and Proprietor are one and the same person in the eyes of law. If Shri Varun Ratra has already deposited service tax liability, no further liability can be fastened against the Proprietary unit. However, the fact whether the rented premises were the same and one in respect of which Shri Varun Ratra has already discharged service tax liability is required to be verified - matter remanded to the Commissioner for denovo adjudication. Beauty Parlour Services - appellant has contended that the services provided by them are not regular Beauty Parlour Services inasmuch as the same are provided under the guidance of Doctors and Dermatologist - HELD THAT:- The type of activities undertaken by the appellant is the essential character to classify their services either under Beauty Parlour Services or Cosmetic or Plastic Surgery Services. The invoices raised by them indicating the type of services are required to be examined and verified. Similarly, the appellants stand that they are working under the medical doctors and the Dermatologists is also required to be examined - matter on remand. Appeal allowed by way of remand.. Issues:1. Demand of service tax under Renting of immovable property services.2. Demand of service tax under Beauty Parlour Services.Renting of immovable property services:The appellant, a proprietary concern, was found liable to pay service tax under renting of immovable property services. The appellant argued that the proprietor had already discharged the service tax liability for the rented premises. However, the Revenue contended that it was unclear if the service tax deposited by the proprietor was for the same premises. The Tribunal noted that if the proprietor had already paid the service tax, no further liability could be imposed on the proprietary unit. Yet, verification was required to confirm if the rented premises were the same. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.Beauty Parlour Services:Regarding the demand of service tax under Beauty Parlour Services, the appellant argued that their services were medically related and not ordinary beauty parlour services. They claimed that services were provided under the guidance of doctors and dermatologists for skin improvement, involving surgical instruments. The appellant cited previous Tribunal decisions to support their argument. The Revenue contended that there was no evidence of service tax payment for surgeries, and reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal emphasized the need to examine the nature of services provided by the appellant, as reflected in their invoices, and verify their activities under medical professionals. The matter was remanded for fresh examination, along with the renting of immovable property services issue, ensuring the appellant's opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal kept all issues, including the limitation issue, open for further consideration.In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded both issues for fresh adjudication to verify the service tax liabilities and the nature of services provided by the appellant. The appellant was granted the opportunity to present their case before the adjudicating authority.