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

Publish Date: 05 Mar, 2011
Print   |    |  Comment

Pay service tax for Health services!!!

Pay service tax for Health services!!!

Prepared By:
CA Pradeep Jain,
CA Preeti Parihar and
CA Rajani Thanvi

In the chain of imposition of duty on new services the levy on hospitals has also been added in the budget 2010-11. Although the rate of service tax is kept constant at 10% but in order to increase indirect tax revenues the Hon’ble Finance Minister has proposed a new levy for hospitals. In his budget speech he expressed that the hospitals having 25 or more beds with centralized air-conditioner system is proposed to be taxed under service tax system.
 
Earlier levy: - Before this proposal the services provided by hospitals, nursing home or multi-specialty clinic are taxable if the same is provided to-
 
A. an employee of any business entity, in relation to health check-up or preventive care, where the payment for such check-up or preventive care is made by such business entity directly to such hospital, nursing home or multi-specialty clinic; or
 
B.  to a person covered by health insurance scheme, for any health check-up or treatment, where the payment for such health check-up or treatment is made by the insurance company directly to such hospital, nursing home or multi-specialty clinic;
 
As there was levy only on the services for which value of service is received either from the insurance company or from the employer in case of treatment for an employee. In that situation a person, who is going to hospital to get benefits for his health, has not to pay a single penny for his health treatments for service tax.

New proposal:-But this is now proposed to be amended in this budget. For this purpose the clause no. zzzzo of sub section 105 of section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 is proposed to be replaced as follows:-
 
for sub-clause (zzzzo) the following sub-clause shall be substituted namely:-
 
“(zzzzo) to any person,-
 
(i) by a clinical establishment; or
 
(ii) by a doctor, not being an employee of a clinical establishment, who provides services from such premises for diagnosis, treatment or care for illness, disease, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy in any system of medicine.”;
 
To explain the meaning of clinical establishment used in above sub clause sub section 25a of section 65 is also intended to be amended in following manner:-
 
(25a) "clinical establishment" mean
 
(i) a hospital, maternity home, nursing home, dispensary, clinic, sanatorium or an institution,by whatever name called, owned, established, administered or managed by any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, having in its establishment the facility of central air-conditioning either in whole or in part of its premises and having more than twenty-five beds for in-patient treatment at any time during the financial year, offering services for diagnosis, treatment or care for illness, disease, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy in any system of medicine; or
 
(ii) an entity owned, established, administered or managed by any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, either as an independent entity or as a part of any clinical establishment referred to in sub-clause (v), which carries out diagnosis of diseases through pathological, bacteriological, genetic, radiological, chemical, biological investigations or other diagnostic or investigative services with the aid of laboratory or other medical equipment,
 
but does not include an establishment, owned or controlled by-        
 
(a) the Government; or
 
(b) a local authority;
 
From the above definition all the hospitals will be covered under the tax regime. Although the government hospitals or the hospitals owned or controlled by a local authority has been kept away from this levy. But for all other hospitals it will be required to charge service tax on the bills of services provided by them.
 
Service Tax rate will be 5%
 
In the budget speech the hon’ble finance minister also expressed for the abatement of 50% in service tax rate. Hence the service tax will be chargeable on services provided by hospitals at the rate of 5%. In the TRU Letter viz. D.O.F. No. 334/3/2011-TRU dt. 28.02.2011 following para is included:-
 
6.4 Finance Minister has announced 50% exemption from the value of this service. The exemption notification will be issued when the new levy is enacted.
 
The Issues: -

  1. The service tax is levied if there are more than 25 beds or centralized air conditioning provided during any part of the whole year. If a hospital expands his business in the month of March then he has to pay the service tax for the whole year. This will not be intention of the Government and it should be amended.
  2. The doctors will also be registered and pay the service tax. They will charge from hospital. The hospital will take the cenvat credit. He will also charge service tax from the client. But he will pay the differential amount. In nutshell, the Government will get the same service tax. The doctor should be exempted. The hospital will be paying the same tax to Government. Hence, there is no need to do such exercise and covering so many people.
  3. Further, tax paid by diagnostic centers is charged form clients and not from hospitals. Hence the credit of the same is not available to Hospitals.
  4. There is lot of opposition on this levy and even the Revenue secretary has promised to review the same. It is likely that this levy will be rolled back.
  5. The Government has exempted Government hospitals from this levy but they will be clubbed in future in the name of fair competition as is being done in commercial coaching and training centre. The universities giving degrees has also to pay tax if they are running coaching centers. They were exempted earlier. This is also done for unauthorized service station in name of fair competition in this budget.

From this letter it seems that the government initially intended to include the hospitals under tax net by levying lesser rate of service tax but in future it may be raised. So now one has to pay tax even for services taken for his/her health also. 

************

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