Gujarat High Court
Nareshkumar Dashrathbhai Patel vs Assistant Commissioner, Cgst, Mehsana on 7 May, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1008/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1008 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
NARESHKUMAR DASHRATHBHAI PATEL
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST, MEHSANA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HARDIK V VORA(7123) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DEEPAK N KHANCHANDANI(7781) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Vora
for the petitioner through video
conference and learned advocate Mr. Deepak
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1008/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
N. Khanchandani for the respondent.
2. Having regard to the controversy
involved which is in a narrow compass,
with the consent of learned advocates for
the respective parties, the matter is
taken up for hearing.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned
advocate Mr. Deepak N. Khanchandani waives
service of rule on behalf of the
respondents.
4. By this petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has challenged the impugned
order-in- original dated 31.01.2023 issued
on 02.02.2023 by the respondent passed
under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1008/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
(For short "the Service Tax Act")
5. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner is a Doctor by profession and
is running a clinic in the name of "Harsha
Clinic". The services offered by the
petitioner in the medical profession fall
under category of healthcare services and
thereby qualifying for exemption from
service tax as per Mega Exemption
Notification No.25/2012-ST dated
20.06.2012.
6. The respondent issued a show cause
notice dated 18.10.2021 under section
73(1) of the Service Tax Act calling upon
the petitioner to show cause as to why
service tax amounting to Rs.1,75,522/-
should not be demanded and recovered along
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1008/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
with interest and penalty under the
provisions of the Service Tax Act.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that
the petitioner had intimated about the
receipt of show cause notice to his Tax
Consultant Mr. Kiran Patel and the
petitioner was under the impression that
the same was dealt with properly.
Thereafter, respondent issued letters
dated 25.11.2022, 08.12.2022 and
28.12.2022 providing opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner
scheduled on 05.12.2022, 16.12.2022 and
05.01.2023 respectively.
8. The petitioner personally attended the
hearing along with his Tax Consultant on
16.12.2022 and explained to the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1008/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
that he is a practising Doctor at the
clinic and is not liable for payment of
service tax as his income is exempt as per
Entry No.2 of Notification No.25/2012.
9. The petitioner also prepared a reply
dated 21.12.2022 along with his renewal
slip from Council of Homeopathic System of
Medicine, Gujarat State and letter from
Kukarwada Gram Panchayat confirming that
the petitioner is a Doctor. However, the
petitioner could not submit the reply in
time before the impugned order is passed
by the respondent on 31.01.2023.
10. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Vora for
the petitioner submitted that on perusal
of the impugned order as well as show
cause notice, the same are without
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1008/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
jurisdiction as respondent could not have
assumed the jurisdiction to levy service
tax upon doctor as healthcare medical
services are exempted under Notification
No.25/2012.
11. It was further submitted that though
the respondent has taken into
consideration the Notification No.25/2012,
but raised the demand only on the ground
that the petitioner did not submit any
reply to the show cause notice and that as
per the information received from the
income tax department, there was tax
deducted at source reflected in Form 26AS.
It was submitted that merely on the basis
of Form 26AS, liability to pay service tax
could not have been raised. It was also
pointed out from the income-tax return
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1008/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
placed on record that profession of the
petitioner is stated to be Doctor at
village Kukarwada, Taluka Vijapur District
Mehsana.
12. It was therefore, submitted that as
the medical services offered by the
petitioner is exempt from levy of service
tax, the impugned show cause notice and
order are without jurisdiction and liable
to be quashed and set aside.
13. On the other hand, learned advocate
Mr. Deepak Khanchandani submitted that the
petitioner has not responded to any of the
notices and has not filed any reply and
therefore, the respondent has no option
but to raise the demand of service tax on
the basis of the information received from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1008/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
the income-tax department which clearly
shows that the petitioner has rendered
services and tax was deducted at source
which is not in dispute.
14. It was therefore, submitted that no
interference is called for while
exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India as the petitioner has alternative
efficacious remedy to challenge the
impugned order-in-original before the
appellate authority.
15. Having heard the learned advocates for
the respective parties and considering the
facts of the case, it is not in dispute
that the medical services offered by the
petitioner is exempted as per Exemption
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1008/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012
and therefore, the show cause notice as
well as the order-in-original are without
jurisdiction.
16. It is also not in dispute that the
respondent has not carried out any further
inquiry on the basis of information
received from the income tax department
in Form 26AS to verify as to whether the
petitioner was providing medical services
or not which is exempt under Notification
No.25/2012.
17. Considering such facts, we are of the
opinion that respondent could not have
assumed the jurisdiction under the
provisions of the Service Tax Act for levy
of service tax for the year 2016-2017. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1008/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
impugned show cause notice and orders are
therefore, quashed and set aside.
18. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. No order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
RAGHUNATH R NAIR
