Tour operator service requires proof of tourist-vehicle use; employee transport by buses was not covered for the disputed period.

For the period after 05.02.2004, tour operator service required the vehicle used to qualify as a tourist vehicle. Where the record contained no evidence that buses provided for employee transportation were tourist vehicles, the activity could not be brought within that taxable category. Pre-amendment case law was held inapposite to the post-amendment definition. In the absence of proof on the essential tourist-vehicle character, interference with the appellate order was not justified, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's activity of providing buses for employee transportation amounted to Tour Operator Service for the period after 05.02.2004 in the absence of evidence that the vehicles used were tourist vehicles.

Analysis: For the post-amendment period, the definition of tour operator required the vehicle to be a tourist vehicle. The appellate authority had recorded a finding that there was nothing on record to show that the journeys were performed in tourist vehicles. The Revenue's reliance on pre-amendment case law was held to be inapposite for the period in dispute. In the absence of evidence establishing the tourist-vehicle character of the buses used by the respondent, interference with the appellate order was not justified.

Conclusion: The activity was not proved to be Tour Operator Service for the relevant period and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---