Hospitals providing infrastructure to visiting doctors not liable for service tax under Business Support Services

The CESTAT Chandigarh held that hospitals providing infrastructure and administrative facilities to visiting doctors are not liable for service tax under Business Support Services. The tribunal found that visiting doctors are service providers to the hospital rather than service recipients, as hospitals allocate doctors to patients, maintain medical records, raise treatment bills, and collect payments. The visiting doctors work for the hospital under agreements and cannot undertake independent practice using hospital infrastructure. The tribunal followed precedents from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and other cases establishing this principle. Additionally, the extended period of limitation was not applicable as revenue failed to establish suppression of facts, fraud, or willful misstatement. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of "Business Support Services" in terms of Section 65(104c) read with Section 65(105)(zzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable in the present case.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Liability to Pay Service Tax under "Business Support Services"

The present appeal challenges the order dated 11.12.2013, where the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ludhiana confirmed a service tax demand of Rs.90,96,590/- u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with interest u/s 75 and penalties u/s 76, 77, and 78 of the Act. The appellant, operating a hospital, was alleged to be rendering "Business Support Services" to visiting doctors. The appellant argued that the true intention of their agreements with visiting doctors was to provide healthcare services to patients, not to lease out infrastructure. The visiting doctors were paid based on work done, and all patient contracts and billing were handled by the hospital. The Tribunal found that the doctors were service providers to the hospital, not vice versa, and the hospital deducted TDS from payments to doctors as per Section 194 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Citing precedents, including Sir Ganga Hospital vs. CCE, Delhi-I, the Tribunal concluded that the hospital did not provide "Business Support Services" to the doctors, and thus, no service tax was payable under this category.

Issue 2: Extended Period of Limitation

The appellant contended that there was no suppression of information to justify invoking the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the appellant had been filing regular Service Tax Returns and disclosing all relevant documents. The Tribunal referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Collector of CE vs. H.M.M. Limited and Easland Combines Coimbatore vs. Collector of CE, Coimbatore, which clarified that extended limitation requires evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement. Finding no such evidence, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

(Order pronounced in the court on 05.04.2024)

---