TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds rent-a-cab service demand, appellant required to predeposit Rs.2.5 lakhs within six weeks</h1> <h3>M/s VISHAL ENTERPRISES Versus CCE, MYSORE</h3> M/s VISHAL ENTERPRISES Versus CCE, MYSORE - 2013 (31) S.T.R. 319 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues Involved:1. Waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of service tax, interest, and penalty.2. Challenge to the demand under 'rent-a-cab service' by the appellant.3. Interpretation of the nature of the appellant's activity in relation to rent-a-cab service.4. Application of relevant legal precedents to determine tax liability.Analysis:Issue 1: Waiver of predeposit and stay of recoveryThe appellant sought waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery concerning service tax, interest, and penalty. The Tribunal directed the appellant to predeposit an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs within six weeks and report compliance. Upon compliance, there would be a waiver and stay in respect of penalty, interest, and the remaining service tax amount.Issue 2: Challenge to the demand under 'rent-a-cab service'The appellant challenged the demand under 'rent-a-cab service' for the period from 01/06/2007 to 13/09/2008. The appellant claimed that the activity of allowing M/s. AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. to use vehicles against payment of 'hire charges' based on kilometers run did not fall under rent-a-cab service, thus asserting no tax liability.Issue 3: Interpretation of the nature of the appellant's activityThe Tribunal analyzed the agreement, bill, and purchase order between the appellant and M/s. AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. It was observed that the appellant collected rent based on seating capacity and mileage of vehicles used by the company, maintaining vehicles as per recipient's specifications. The Tribunal found the activity to prima facie amount to operating a rent-a-cab scheme for the service recipient, supporting the Revenue's view.Issue 4: Application of legal precedentsThe Tribunal considered legal precedents cited by both sides. The appellant relied on decisions in R.S. Travels vs. CCE, Meerut and Sri Sai Krishna Travels vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam to support their claim. However, the Revenue cited CCE, Chandigarh vs. Kuldeep Singh Gill, emphasizing the appellant's operation of a rent-a-cab scheme as defined under Section 65(91) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found the decision in Kuldeep Singh Gill case supportive of the Revenue's stance, leading to the direction for predeposit by the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demand under 'rent-a-cab service' based on the nature of the appellant's activity and legal precedents, requiring predeposit while granting waiver and stay for penalty, interest, and the remaining service tax amount upon compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
