Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a person holding a contract carriage permit, without proof that the vehicle satisfies the requirements of a tourist vehicle and is used for operating tours, is liable to service tax as a tour operator.
Analysis: The applicable statutory scheme required the person to be engaged in operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Mere possession of a contract carriage permit was not enough by itself. The vehicle had to answer the statutory description of a tourist vehicle, and the service had to fall within the defined ambit of tour operator service. The Revenue failed to produce material showing infirmity in the Commissioner's finding that the vehicles were not shown to be tourist vehicles merely because they had contract carriage permits. The issue was also covered by earlier consistent Tribunal decisions followed in the matter.
Conclusion: Mere holding of a contract carriage permit does not, by itself, make the operator liable as a tour operator for service tax.
Final Conclusion: The demand was unsustainable on the facts and law applied, and the assessee's position prevailed.
Ratio Decidendi: Liability to tour operator service arises only when the operator uses a vehicle that satisfies the statutory definition of a tourist vehicle and operates tours within the defined service; a contract carriage permit alone is insufficient.