2018 (10) TMI 1552 - AT - Service Tax

Tour Operator Exempt from Service Tax: Tribunal Rules Activity Not Meeting Legal Criteria

M/s. Kalpana Travels Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Jaipur-I

The Tribunal held that the appellant, a holder of Service Tax Registration for Tour Operator Services, was not liable to pay Service Tax for amounts ... Tour Operator Service - appellant have collected the amount of taxable tour charges from the other Tour Operator - scope of SCN - Held that:- The perusal thereof shows that for a person to render a tour operator service it is not merely collection of the ticket booking/the tour booking charges but in addition requires planning, scheduling, organizing & arranging tours, which also includes arrangement for accommodation, site seeing and other similar services. The only reason that there is no evidence for the discharge of liability of tour operator service even on part of the M/s. Dashmesh Tours & Travels the same cannot be the reason to confirm the demand of tour operator service qua the assessee who apparently and admittedly is just rendering service of booking tickets - the activity of the appellant has mentioned that collection of amount for any tour is merely a booking activity. Any demand under the guise of it being tour operator is not sustainable. The booking activity demand has not been raised by the show cause notice. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Whether the appellant, a holder of Service Tax Registration for Tour Operator Services, is liable to pay Service Tax for the amount collected from another Tour Operator.2. Whether the activity of the appellant qualifies as tour operator services under the relevant legal provisions.3. Whether the demand for Service Tax on the appellant is sustainable based on the definition of tour operator service.Analysis:1. The case involves an appeal against the demand of Service Tax on the appellant for collecting taxable tour charges from another Tour Operator without paying the Service Tax. The appellant argued that they only collected amounts for tour charges on behalf of the other operator and did not provide tour operator services. The demand was confirmed by the lower authorities, leading to the appeal.2. The appellant contended that their activity of collecting tour charges for ticket bookings did not fall under the definition of tour operator services. They cited a case law to support their argument, emphasizing that the collection of amounts for tours was merely a booking activity and not tour operation. The Department, however, argued that the appellant's activity did qualify as tour operator services as per the applicable legal provisions.3. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of tour operator under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994, which requires planning, scheduling, organizing, and arranging tours, including accommodation and sightseeing services. The Tribunal found that the appellant's activity of only collecting tour charges did not meet the criteria for tour operator services. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of the appellant providing the necessary tour-related services beyond collecting charges, and the demand was not raised in the show cause notice. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the confirmation of the demand was not sustainable and set aside the order, allowing the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision.