https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783340 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeals, holding that services rendered by the hospital to doctors/consultants under a revenue-sharing arrangement are classifiable as exempt "health care services" and not taxable "business support services." The Tribunal followed its consistent jurisprudence that providing infrastructure and facilities to doctors within a clinical establishment does not amount to supporting the commerce or business of doctors for service tax purposes. It further held that the extended period of limitation was not invocable, as the dispute concerned interpretation of law and the department failed to establish suppression or misstatement; consequently, even the demand for the normal period also failed. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:39:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783340 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeals, holding that services rendered by the hospital to doctors/consultants under a revenue-sharing arrangement are classifiable as exempt "health care services" and not taxable "business support services." The Tribunal followed its consistent jurisprudence that providing infrastructure and facilities to doctors within a clinical establishment does not amount to supporting the commerce or business of doctors for service tax purposes. It further held that the extended period of limitation was not invocable, as the dispute concerned interpretation of law and the department failed to establish suppression or misstatement; consequently, even the demand for the normal period also failed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783340