TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, for the period prior to 10.09.2004, supplying buses or vehicles on hire under contract carriage permits was taxable as Tour Operator Service when the vehicles were not shown to be tourist vehicles conforming to the prescribed specifications; (ii) whether, for the period after 10.09.2004, the same activity fell within the amended definition of Tour Operator Service when the operators were not planning, scheduling, organising or arranging tours but were only providing vehicles under fixed contracts; and (iii) whether demand in respect of General Travels was sustainable for picnic tours and whether penalty was liable to be waived.
Issue (i): Whether, for the period prior to 10.09.2004, supplying buses or vehicles on hire under contract carriage permits was taxable as Tour Operator Service when the vehicles were not shown to be tourist vehicles conforming to the prescribed specifications.
Analysis: The pre-amended definition applied only to a person engaged in operating tourist vehicles covered by a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act. A tourist vehicle had to be a contract carriage constructed or adapted and equipped in accordance with the prescribed specifications. The relevant specifications were contained in Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. On the facts, the vehicles in question were not established to be tourist vehicles; in some matters the transport authority specifically stated that they could not be treated as tourist vehicles, and in the remaining matters there was no material showing compliance with Rule 128. The reasoning accepted in earlier decisions was that contract carriage by itself was not enough unless the vehicle satisfied the tourist vehicle requirements.
Conclusion: The activity was not taxable as Tour Operator Service for the period prior to 10.09.2004, and the demand was unsustainable against the assessees.
Issue (ii): Whether, for the period after 10.09.2004, the same activity fell within the amended definition of Tour Operator Service when the operators were not planning, scheduling, organising or arranging tours but were only providing vehicles under fixed contracts.
Analysis: After amendment, the definition extended to persons engaged in planning, scheduling, organising or arranging tours by any mode of transport, while the vehicle-based limb continued separately. The contracts showed only supply of vehicles of specified capacity on fixed routes and timings for agreed consideration, without discretion to plan or organise tours independently. The legislative intent reflected in the circular was to expand the levy to package tours and similar arrangements, not to every contract carriage arrangement. On that basis, mere provision of buses under contract to transport employees or similar users did not amount to planning or organising tours.
Conclusion: For the post-10.09.2004 period, the activity did not fall within Tour Operator Service in the assessees' cases, and the demands were not sustainable.
Issue (iii): Whether demand in respect of General Travels was sustainable for picnic tours and whether penalty was liable to be waived.
Analysis: In General Travels, the activity involved tours organised for picnics and similar outings, which fell within the first limb of the amended definition because the service amounted to planning or arranging tours irrespective of the nature of the vehicle. However, the record also showed long-standing uncertainty in the law and conflicting judicial views, constituting reasonable cause for non-imposition of penalty.
Conclusion: The demand against General Travels was upheld, but the penalty was waived.
Final Conclusion: The common order granted relief to all appellants except General Travels, whose tax liability was sustained while penalties were set aside; the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: For Tour Operator Service, the pre-amendment levy applied only to tourist vehicles conforming to the prescribed specifications, and after amendment a mere contract carriage arrangement was taxable only if the operator was actually engaged in planning, scheduling, organising or arranging tours.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
