TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2010 to 30.04.2011, the appellant provided medical treatments to patients covered under various medical insurance schemes including the "Kalaignar Kapitu Thittam". During the said period, medical services were taxable if the payment was made directly by an insurance companies or business entity to the hospital. On 30.12.2013, the appellant opted for the voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), declaring a taxable value of Rs.11,78,900/- and paying tax of Rs.1,21,427/-. A discharge certificate (VCES - 3) No.142/2013 dated 30.01.2014 in terms of the subsection (7) of Section 107 of the Chapter VI of the Finance Act 2013 was issued by the designated authority. 3. Subsequently, on verification of hospital records conducted by the department, it was seen that the appellant had actual gross receipts of Rs.44,14,824 for the disputed period. Hence, the department being of the view that the appellant has failed to declare their correct service tax liability in the VCES -1 declaration filed, issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) invoking the extended period of limitation as per proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act 1994 (Act), read with section 111 (1) and Section 111 (3) of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. Coimbatore, 2019 (1) TMI 76 - Madras High Court. 6. Ld. Counsel further argued without prejudice to the above submissions that service tax can be levied only on the consideration for service and any expenditure incurred by the service provider which is reimbursed by the recipient cannot be included in the taxable value placing reliance on the decision in Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (3) TMI 357 (SC). 7. The Ld. counsel also argued that the demand is barred by limitation. It is submitted that extended period was invoked on the allegation when the VCES -1 declaration was substantially false or made with the intent to evade tax. It is contented that the category of health checkup treatment services was new and controversial levy, introduced as per Notification dated 22.06.2010 which was withdrawn shortly through the notification 30/2011 dated 25.4.2011. Since the service was taxable for the limited period and there was a considerable confusion as to whether the service rendered under a scheme by the Government fall under the category of health services for levy of service tax or for welfare scheme, the issues were debatable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dentity cards under different welfare schemes such as agricultural labourer scheme, manual workers welfare board, construction workers welfare board etc. are to be included as eligible beneficiaries under the scheme. In addition, any family whose annual income is less than Rs. 24,000/- will be covered under the scheme as members. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company was recognized for implementation of the scheme. The appellant thus vide agreement dated 28.7.2009 had empanelled for providing the treatment under the said scheme. The foremost argument put forward on merits by the ld. consultant is that the treatment rendered under Kalaignar Kapeetu Thittam floated by the Government would not be covered by the definition of 'Health Services'. The said issue was agitated before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Arvinth Hospitals (supra). The Hon'ble High Court has observed as under:- "10. However, one fundamental error which has crept in the impugned proceedings is that the authority while adjudicating the show cause notice did not examine the scope of the transaction between the petitioner and the Government/STAR. In fact that should have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to call for the same from the competent authority of the State Government and thereafter, make a thorough examination of the factual aspects and after affording an effective opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to co-operate in the adjudication and the first respondent shall endeavour to complete the entire exercise, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed." 8. As seen from the judgment, the case of M/s. Arvinth Hospitals was remanded to the adjudicating authority to analylze the issue whether the services would fall under taxable category of health services. The facts presented in this case before us are identical and the submissions made are similar. We are of the view that the issue, whether the services rendered by the appellant would fall under taxable category of health service, has to be given reconsideration in line with the observations and directions of the Hon'ble High Court rendered in the case of M/s. Arvinth Hospital. We deem it fit to remand the matter t....