<?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 (4) TMI 1660 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790591</link>
    <description>Service tax was treated as inapplicable to the Manipal Arogya Suraksha Scheme because the collections were remitted to the insurer, the appellant assumed no insurance risk, and it acted only as a facilitator rather than rendering an independent taxable service. The Manipal Arogya Card Scheme was treated as exempt as healthcare services by a clinical establishment under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Legal services received by a charitable trust were held outside reverse charge liability because the recipient was not a business entity. The demand was also held time-barred, since the transactions were disclosed in the books, public material, and departmental audit, leaving no basis for the extended period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1660 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790591</link>
      <description>Service tax was treated as inapplicable to the Manipal Arogya Suraksha Scheme because the collections were remitted to the insurer, the appellant assumed no insurance risk, and it acted only as a facilitator rather than rendering an independent taxable service. The Manipal Arogya Card Scheme was treated as exempt as healthcare services by a clinical establishment under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Legal services received by a charitable trust were held outside reverse charge liability because the recipient was not a business entity. The demand was also held time-barred, since the transactions were disclosed in the books, public material, and departmental audit, leaving no basis for the extended period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790591</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>