Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the hospital-assessees, holding that services rendered to doctors/consultants under a revenue-sharing model are not taxable as "Business Support Services" but qualify as "Health Care Services," which are exempt from service tax. Relying on consistent Tribunal precedent, it rejected the department's contention that providing infrastructure and related facilities to doctors constituted support of commerce or business. CESTAT further held that invocation of the extended period of limitation was impermissible as the dispute concerned interpretation of law and the department failed to establish suppression or misstatement; consequently, even the demand for the normal period could not survive.
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the hospital-assessees, holding that services rendered to doctors/consultants under a revenue-sharing model are not taxable as "Business Support Services" but qualify as "Health Care Services," which are exempt from service tax. Relying on consistent Tribunal precedent, it rejected the department's contention that providing infrastructure and related facilities to doctors constituted support of commerce or business. CESTAT further held that invocation of the extended period of limitation was impermissible as the dispute concerned interpretation of law and the department failed to establish suppression or misstatement; consequently, even the demand for the normal period could not survive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
