Pre-deposit for alleged tour operator service tax demand set aside after prima facie finding that no tourist permit was held.

A prima facie plea that the appellant was not a tour operator was accepted, where he claimed only to have booked seats on tours run by others and to have no vehicle, tourist permit, or Motor Vehicles Act registration. The relevant statutory definition of tour operation, as noted, turned on holding a tourist permit, and the record did not show any finding that such a permit existed. On that basis, the insistence on pre-deposit was not justified. The pre-deposit requirement was set aside and the appeal was remitted for decision on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction to make pre-deposit was justified when the appellant had raised a prima facie plea that he was not a tour operator and, consequently, not liable to comply with the registration and service tax requirements applicable to tour operation.

Analysis: The appellant asserted that he merely booked seats on tours conducted by other operators, did not own any vehicle, held no tourist permit, and was not registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. The record did not show any finding that he held a tourist permit, and the relevant statutory definition of tour operation, as noticed in the order, turned on the holding of such a permit. On that prima facie basis, the insistence on deposit was not justified.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit requirement was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

---