Case Law Details
Dr Sanjiv Arunchandra Vasa Vs C.S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Hair loss is a normal process which affects almost every person at some stage of life sooner or later. We can understand that genes play a role in preserving hair to humans and when a person lose hair at some stage of life it can be a combination of genes, life style and environmental processes. In fact, every disease in a body which is not due to injury or trauma can be due to a faulty genes. In our view, the test before us is to examine whether Hair Transplant is a medical procedure which fits into exclusion categories of definition of cosmetic and plastic surgery. The definition is given under clause (zzzzk) of Clause 105 of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 reads as follows:-
“Taxable Service means any service provided or to be provided to any person, by any other person, in relation to Cosmetic Surgery or Plastic Surgery, but does not include any surgery undertaken to restore or reconstruct anatomy or functions of body affected due to congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, degenerative diseases, injury or trauma.”
It can be seen that Hair Transplant is neither undertaken to restore or reconstruct anatomy or its functions, nor the procedure of hair transplant restores developmental abnormalities degenerative diseases, injury or trauma. We find that hair transplant is a medical procedure to improve outer look of the body for time being and it does in any way contributes to the anatomy or functions of human body.
Secondly, we also find that the medical procedure undertaken by the appellant is a process which is not opted by every person affected with hair loss, it is only a few affluent or self physical appearance conscious persons who undertake such surgery, the other persons affected by hair loss also live a normal life without any „sub-normal‟ condition as claimed by learned Chartered Accountant. It is also normally seen that the Hospitals who undertake procedure of Hair Transplantation advertise/ display their activity not as a disease to be cured but they claim that the procedure taken by them enhances physical appearance. So in our view, only diseases such as „Congenital atrichia‟ or „hypotrichosis‟ which are unique conditions of hair loss which exhibit at birth or early stages during childhood could only be considered congenital defects for the purpose of exemption. We do not find case law of M/S Mohak Tech Speciality Hospital Vs. C.C & S.T., Indore [2021(45) G.S.T.L. 149 (Tri.-Del)] which is not on hair transplantation as relevant to the facts of the case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
