2025-VIL-223-CESTAT-KOL-ST
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-223-CESTAT-KOL-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Cenvat credit, Business Support Service, Business Auxiliary Service, Health care Service, Renting of immovable property service, import of service - The appellant is providing various services like health care service, providing its space in the hospital premises to various persons for furtherance of business etc - the appellant was providing both taxable and exempted services but did not maintain separate records for the input services used for provision of taxable and exempted services - Department issued a show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation and confirmed several demands under various service categories - Whether the demand under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 due to non-reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) in regard to exempted service is legally sustainable - HELD - The decisions of the High Courts and Tribunals have consistently held that reversal of Cenvat credit would amount to non-availment of the same and there is no statutory provision to demand 6%/8%/10% of the value of exempted services in case the assessee does not fulfill the conditions of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 - the appellant has already reversed the entire Cenvat credit along with interest and this reversal would amount to a situation of no Cenvat credit being taken in the first place – all the confirmed demands made by the department are set aside and the appeal is allowed - Whether the demand under BSS is legally sustainable - HELD - The appellant has merely made available the space to the client for the purpose of selling medicines and other surgical instruments and equipments, and has not provided any other infrastructure facilities. Therefore, the activity is akin to renting of immovable property and not 'Business Support Service'. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. wherein it was held that mere renting of office space does not come within the definition of 'business support service' - Whether the demand under 'Business Auxiliary Service' is legally sustainable - HELD - The show cause notice did not specify under which clause of the definition of BAS the liability shall be fastened on the appellant. It is well settled that to bring any activity under the definition of 'business auxiliary service' for levy of tax, it is to be clearly mentioned in the show cause notice under which clause of the definition shall apply. Since the demand has been proposed under the omnibus definition without specifying the clause, the Tribunal set aside the demand - Whether the demand under 'health care service' as pure agent is legally sustainable - HELD – The demand under 'health care service' as pure agent is not legally sustainable - it was a mere clerical mistake on the part of the appellant in reporting the exempted income under the wrong head in the ST-3 return. Since the appellant has not received any amount as a pure agent during the relevant period, the Tribunal set aside the demand - Whether the demand under 'renting of immovable property service' is legally sustainable - HELD - The appellant has calculated the service tax liability on cum-tax basis in terms of Section 67(2) of the Act and deposited the same along with applicable interest. Since the Revenue has not adduced any evidence to the effect that the appellant has charged and recovered the service tax from their tenants, the appellant is entitled for the cum-tax benefit - Whether the demand under 'health care service' in respect of sundry debtors is legally sustainable - HELD - The demand under 'health care service' in respect of sundry debtors is not legally sustainable. The service tax was payable on collection basis and not on the invoice basis during the material period. Since the appellant has accounted for and paid the service tax as and when the amounts were realized from the debtors, the Tribunal set aside the demand - Whether the demand under 'health care service' in respect of amount received from corporates for treatment of their employees is legally sustainable - HELD - The demand under 'health care service' in respect of amount received from corporates for treatment of their employees is not legally sustainable. The Tribunal observed that the services provided to the employees of the corporates are in the nature of in-patient hospitalization charges and not 'health check-up or preventive care' which is the only service taxable under the 'health care service' category - Whether the demand under Section 66A of the Act in respect of import of service is legally sustainable - HELD - The demand under Section 66A of the Act in respect of import of service is not legally sustainable. The Tribunal observed that the show cause notice did not specify the classification under which the service tax demand was proposed, and the Adjudicating authority had traveled beyond the scope of the show cause notice while confirming the demand under various classifications.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Credit Notes ITC Reversal in IMS…
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?