https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400781 The Tribunal held that the hospital's retention of fees from contracted doctors was for healthcare services, not infrastructural support subject to service tax. The Tribunal emphasized the mutual benefits and shared responsibilities between the parties, finding no evidence of specific infrastructural support services. It was concluded that the hospital was not liable for service tax under 'business support services'. The Commissioner's decision confirming the service tax demand was overturned, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the hospital. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Feb 2021 15:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400781 The Tribunal held that the hospital's retention of fees from contracted doctors was for healthcare services, not infrastructural support subject to service tax. The Tribunal emphasized the mutual benefits and shared responsibilities between the parties, finding no evidence of specific infrastructural support services. It was concluded that the hospital was not liable for service tax under 'business support services'. The Commissioner's decision confirming the service tax demand was overturned, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the hospital. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 02 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400781