TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 684
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant is a Psychoanalyst, Psychotherapist and a Mental Healthcare professional and is providing related healthcare services. The appellant is also assisting doctors and psychiatrists in providing mental healthcare to their patients including patients in emergency situation/ serious crisis situation. The entire case of Revenue is based upon the Income Tax Returns filed by the appellant with the Income Tax Department. On examination of the data provided by the Income Tax Department it was found by revenue that although the appellant has declared his income under direct tax but since the same was not covered under the negative list of services inserted in the Finance Act, 1994 vide Section 66D ibid w.e.f. 1.7.2012 as per notification no.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e service tax. Per contra learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of revenue supported the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorised representative on behalf of revenue and perused the case records including the synopsis/decisions placed on record. Admittedly the entire case of the department is based on the thirdparty data received from the Income Tax Department for the F.Y. 2015-16 after which on the basis of best judgment the entire demand was calculated and show cause notice was issued after invoking the extended period of limitation. It is also admitted fact that the aforesaid show cause notice has been issued just ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5) GSTL 96 (Tri.-All.), later on confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by dismissing the appeal of the department against the said order as reported in 2019 (22) G.S.T.L. J166 (All.); Commissioner vs. Sharma Fabricators & Erectors Pvt. Ltd. Therefore in the present case also, the demand cannot sustain. 5. It is not borne out from the case records that the appellant had actually charged service tax from its customers nor it is the case of the department. The appellant was under the bonafide belief that he is not liable for service tax and therefore neither he applied for service tax registration nor filed the service tax returns. The appellant had shown the entire amount received in his incometax return and the tax ....