<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (1) TMI 264 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784508</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether a hospital&#039;s arrangements with visiting specialist doctors-providing infrastructure and administrative support and retaining a portion of patient collections-constituted taxable &quot;Business Support Service&quot; or exempt &quot;Health Care Service.&quot; The Tribunal held that such facilitative arrangements are integral to provision of medical care and, consistent with prior Tribunal decisions, are classifiable as &quot;Health Care Services&quot; and therefore not liable to service tax; the tax demand on this basis failed. On limitation, since the dispute turned on interpretation of statutory provisions and was subject to divergent views nationally, the extended period was held inapplicable; consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:03:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 264 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784508</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether a hospital&#039;s arrangements with visiting specialist doctors-providing infrastructure and administrative support and retaining a portion of patient collections-constituted taxable &quot;Business Support Service&quot; or exempt &quot;Health Care Service.&quot; The Tribunal held that such facilitative arrangements are integral to provision of medical care and, consistent with prior Tribunal decisions, are classifiable as &quot;Health Care Services&quot; and therefore not liable to service tax; the tax demand on this basis failed. On limitation, since the dispute turned on interpretation of statutory provisions and was subject to divergent views nationally, the extended period was held inapplicable; consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>