Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON NON AVAILAILITY OF EXEMPTION TO NATUROPATHY CENTERS PROVIDING WELLNESS FACILITIES 141/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON NON AVAILAILITY OF EXEMPTION TO NATUROPATHY CENTERS PROVIDING WELLNESS FACILITIES 141/2020-21
Health care services provided to in-patients along with charging for accommodation and food has been clarified vide circular No.32/06/2018-GST dated 12.02.2018 as Composite Supply and is exempt from GST considering health care services as principal supply. On hearing the term ‘health care services’ that comes to mind is by means of allopathy (the treatment of disease by conventional means, i.e. with drugs having effects opposite to the symptoms). But in India we do have other means of treatment as well. In this update, we shall be discussing a AAR Ruling pronounced by the state of Gujarat in the case of M/s Oswal Industries Ltd. providing naturopathy services, wherein it has been held that the benefit of exemption shall not be available.
M/s Nimba nature cure Villagea unit of M/ Oswal Industries Ltd. which offers physical, psychological and spiritual health overhaul with the help of power of nature. Further they provide different types of wellness facilities such as Naturopathy, Ayurveda, Yoga and meditation, Physiotherapy and Special therapy with the help of highly qualified professionals’ doctors in the field of naturopathy, researchers, and support staff. They have been enjoying exemption vide Notification No.25/2012- ST dated 20.06.2012 (Sl.No.2(i)) under the Finance Act, 1994 in the Pre GST regime. The following Question is being raised
Whether the applicant is eligible to get the benefit of entry No.74 of exemption Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017?”
In the GST regime M/s Oswal Industries Ltd. states that they fall under heading 9993 which reads as human health and social care services. So they are eligible for exemption as per entry no. 74 of exemption notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 which is produced here for quick reference
Sl. No. Chapter, Section, Heading, Group or Service Code (Tariff) Description of services Rate (per cent.) Condition
74 9993 Services by way of-(a) health care services by a clinical establishment, an authorised medical practitioner or paramedics; (b) services provided by way of transportation of a patient in an ambulance, other than those specified in (a) above. Nil Nil
 
The applicant has placed reliance on the following
·        Definition of ‘Clinical Establishment’ which is similar in both Pre GST and GST regime. The definition of which requires satisfaction of the following which the applicant contends to satisfied
(i)                  Diagnosis or treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy.
(ii)                The diagnosis, treatment or care should be through recognised system of medicine in India.
(iii)               The same can either be an independent entity or part of any establishment so as to provide the said service.
·        An Advance Ruling pronounced by Goa AAR in the case of M/s Alcon Resort Holdings (P.) ltd. wherein it was held that providing treatment under supervision of qualified doctors will be called as clinical establishment and the applicant was eligible for exemption under health care services.
·        Reliance was placed on Circular No.32/06/2018-GST dated 12.02.2018 has clarified under Sl.No.5 that food supplied to the inpatients as advised by the doctor/nutritionists is a part of composite supply of healthcare and not separately taxable. It has also clarified that the entire amount charged by them from the patients including the retention money and the fee/payments made to the doctors etc., is towards the healthcare services provided by the hospitals to the patients and is exempt.
·        Further they stated that Hon’ble CESTAT in CCE v/s Coconut Lagoon Kumarakom 2018-TIOL2436-CESTAT-BANG while dealing with a matter under the Service Tax law, held that Ayurvedic centres located in resorts and the duration of treatment from being therapeutic treatment and it cannot be said that the massages and treatment offered is for general wellbeing and the price charged for the treatment is not a relevant factor. The treatment at Nimba Nature Cure Village is provided by qualified doctors and hence the exemption is available in their case.  
In the present case Gujarat AAR after considering the submissions of the applicant has stated referred to the website of Nimba Nature Cure which indicates that the therapy offered by them is strictly on a residence basis. The same is evident from the fact that the consideration is solely dependent on the type of room opted by the customer. This creates an impression that stay is mandatory and the charges of stay depend on the above factors. Thus the element of accommodation becomes the primary activity in the entire package. The fact that the package is strictly a residence package is fortified by the schedule of the programme. Thus services of accommodation, food and therapy is being provided. Considering the services being provided by the applicant as ‘Composite Supply’ and the principal supply being that of accommodation is classifiable under Heading No. 996311 under ‘Room or unit accommodation services provided by Hotels, Inn, Guest House, Club and the like’. So exemption available at Entry No.74 of Exemption Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 is not applicable to the applicant.
The unique way of deciding the things by Advance Ruling can be seen in this verdict. They have to examine whether the health care services provided by them will be exempt or not? But rather than deciding the same, they have mentioned that rooms are mandatory and package is linked with the same. Hence, it will be called as services for accommodation. Hence, there is no requirement of seeing the healthcare services. Now, we see that packages are linked in hospitals also with the type of room occupied by the patient. Can we say that this is not health care services but is accommodation services? Moreover, the issue of exemption available under service tax was not examined at all by AAR whereas the assessee has pleaded that meaning of “clinical establishment” is same in service tax and GST, jurisdrudence developed under the service tax regime should continue to apply in the GST. But this was not discussed at all.
Hence, the assesee has no option except to challenge in AAAR. Time and again, it is seen that there is no use to go to advance ruling in present set up. A demand of centralised Advance ruling along with judicial members is need of the hour and should be implemented at the earliest.    Health care services provided to in-patients along with charging for accommodation and food has been clarified vide circular No.32/06/2018-GST dated 12.02.2018 as Composite Supply and is exempt from GST considering health care services as principal supply. On hearing the term ‘health care services’ that comes to mind is by means of allopathy (the treatment of disease by conventional means, i.e. with drugs having effects opposite to the symptoms). But in India we do have other means of treatment as well. In this update, we shall be discussing a AAR Ruling pronounced by the state of Gujarat in the case of M/s Oswal Industries Ltd. providing naturopathy services, wherein it has been held that the benefit of exemption shall not be available.
M/s Nimba nature cure Villagea unit of M/ Oswal Industries Ltd. which offers physical, psychological and spiritual health overhaul with the help of power of nature. Further they provide different types of wellness facilities such as Naturopathy, Ayurveda, Yoga and meditation, Physiotherapy and Special therapy with the help of highly qualified professionals’ doctors in the field of naturopathy, researchers, and support staff. They have been enjoying exemption vide Notification No.25/2012- ST dated 20.06.2012 (Sl.No.2(i)) under the Finance Act, 1994 in the Pre GST regime. The following Question is being raised
Whether the applicant is eligible to get the benefit of entry No.74 of exemption Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017?”
In the GST regime M/s Oswal Industries Ltd. states that they fall under heading 9993 which reads as human health and social care services. So they are eligible for exemption as per entry no. 74 of exemption notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 which is produced here for quick reference
Sl. No. Chapter, Section, Heading, Group or Service Code (Tariff) Description of services Rate (per cent.) Condition
74 9993 Services by way of-(a) health care services by a clinical establishment, an authorised medical practitioner or paramedics; (b) services provided by way of transportation of a patient in an ambulance, other than those specified in (a) above. Nil Nil
 
The applicant has placed reliance on the following
·        Definition of ‘Clinical Establishment’ which is similar in both Pre GST and GST regime. The definition of which requires satisfaction of the following which the applicant contends to satisfied
(i)                  Diagnosis or treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy.
(ii)                The diagnosis, treatment or care should be through recognised system of medicine in India.
(iii)               The same can either be an independent entity or part of any establishment so as to provide the said service.
·        An Advance Ruling pronounced by Goa AAR in the case of M/s Alcon Resort Holdings (P.) ltd. wherein it was held that providing treatment under supervision of qualified doctors will be called as clinical establishment and the applicant was eligible for exemption under health care services.
·        Reliance was placed on Circular No.32/06/2018-GST dated 12.02.2018 has clarified under Sl.No.5 that food supplied to the inpatients as advised by the doctor/nutritionists is a part of composite supply of healthcare and not separately taxable. It has also clarified that the entire amount charged by them from the patients including the retention money and the fee/payments made to the doctors etc., is towards the healthcare services provided by the hospitals to the patients and is exempt.
·        Further they stated that Hon’ble CESTAT in CCE v/s Coconut Lagoon Kumarakom 2018-TIOL2436-CESTAT-BANG while dealing with a matter under the Service Tax law, held that Ayurvedic centres located in resorts and the duration of treatment from being therapeutic treatment and it cannot be said that the massages and treatment offered is for general wellbeing and the price charged for the treatment is not a relevant factor. The treatment at Nimba Nature Cure Village is provided by qualified doctors and hence the exemption is available in their case.  
In the present case Gujarat AAR after considering the submissions of the applicant has stated referred to the website of Nimba Nature Cure which indicates that the therapy offered by them is strictly on a residence basis. The same is evident from the fact that the consideration is solely dependent on the type of room opted by the customer. This creates an impression that stay is mandatory and the charges of stay depend on the above factors. Thus the element of accommodation becomes the primary activity in the entire package. The fact that the package is strictly a residence package is fortified by the schedule of the programme. Thus services of accommodation, food and therapy is being provided. Considering the services being provided by the applicant as ‘Composite Supply’ and the principal supply being that of accommodation is classifiable under Heading No. 996311 under ‘Room or unit accommodation services provided by Hotels, Inn, Guest House, Club and the like’. So exemption available at Entry No.74 of Exemption Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 is not applicable to the applicant.
The unique way of deciding the things by Advance Ruling can be seen in this verdict. They have to examine whether the health care services provided by them will be exempt or not? But rather than deciding the same, they have mentioned that rooms are mandatory and package is linked with the same. Hence, it will be called as services for accommodation. Hence, there is no requirement of seeing the healthcare services. Now, we see that packages are linked in hospitals also with the type of room occupied by the patient. Can we say that this is not health care services but is accommodation services? Moreover, the issue of exemption available under service tax was not examined at all by AAR whereas the assessee has pleaded that meaning of “clinical establishment” is same in service tax and GST, jurisdrudence developed under the service tax regime should continue to apply in the GST. But this was not discussed at all.
Hence, the assesee has no option except to challenge in AAAR. Time and again, it is seen that there is no use to go to advance ruling in present set up. A demand of centralised Advance ruling along with judicial members is need of the hour and should be implemented at the earliest.   

This is solely for educational purpose.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com , at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/
 as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21 and u may also follow us on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com