The Supreme Court has dismissed the curative petition filed by Patanjali Yogpeeth Trust, thereby affirming its liability to pay service tax on entry fees collected for residential and non-residential yoga camps. The Court held that no ground was made out to entertain the curative plea within the parameters laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.
A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on February 4, also rejecting the Trust’s request for an open-court hearing.
The curative petition challenged the January 7, 2025 order of a Bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka (since retired), which had dismissed the Trust’s review plea against the Supreme Court’s April 19, 2024 judgment.
In the April 2024 decision, the Court had upheld the October 5, 2023 ruling of the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), holding that yoga camps conducted for a fee constitute a taxable service. The Court had observed:
“The tribunal has rightly held that yoga in camps for a fee is a service. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.”
The appellate tribunal had classified the activities of Patanjali Yogpeeth Trust under “health and fitness service” as defined in Section 65(52) of the Finance Act. It found that the Trust organised yoga training camps—both residential and non-residential—under the guidance of Yoga guru Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna and collected participation charges.
Although the amounts were described as “donations”, the tribunal held that they constituted consideration for services rendered. It noted that:
- Entry tickets of different denominations were issued
- Participants received varying privileges based on the ticket value
- The payment was a condition for attending the camps
The tribunal therefore concluded that the amounts were fees “disguised as donation” and attracted service tax.
A service tax demand of approximately ₹4.5 crore for the period October 2006 to March 2011, along with interest and penalty, had been raised by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut.
The Trust had contended that the camps were meant for curing ailments and should not fall within taxable “health and fitness service”. The tribunal rejected this argument, holding that:
- Yoga and meditation were imparted collectively, not individually
- No written prescriptions or diagnosis for specific ailments were issued
- There was no evidence of personalised medical treatment
It therefore held that the activity was not therapeutic healthcare but a general fitness service.
While dismissing the curative petition, the Supreme Court reiterated that such pleas are entertained only within the narrow parameters laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra, which were not satisfied in the present case.
