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 transportation of employees in contract carriages, which were not tourist vehicles, was taxable as tour operator service for the period prior to 10-09-2004 and for the period after the amended definition of tour operator service.
Analysis: For the pre-10-09-2004 period, tour operator service applied only where the operator used a tourist vehicle. A tourist vehicle had to answer the definition under Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and conform to Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The vehicles used by the appellant were not shown to satisfy those requirements, so the levy could not be sustained for that period. For the post-10-09-2004 period, the amended definition extended the levy to planning, scheduling, organizing, or arranging tours, including package tours, but the appellant only supplied vehicles on fixed contractual terms for employee transportation. There was no material to show independent planning or scheduling of tours by the appellant, and the vehicles also continued not to be tourist vehicles. The circular issued by the Board did not extend the levy to such a pure transport arrangement.
Conclusion: The activity did not fall within tour operator service for either period, and the demand was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Tour operator service requires either use of a tourist vehicle conforming to the statutory motor vehicle requirements or, under the expanded definition, independent planning or arranging of tours; a mere contract carriage arrangement for employee transportation is not taxable on that basis.