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 the activities of the appellant in collecting entry fee and other charges for access to the tiger reserve, canter ride and short-term accommodation were taxable as tour operator and accommodation services, or whether they were exempt statutory activities performed by a Government authority.
Analysis: The appellant was found to be a Government authority under the wildlife law, discharging functions under Government orders and statutory permissions. The charges collected from visitors were deposited in the Government exchequer and were treated as fees collected in the course of statutory administration, not as commercial consideration. The reasoning also relied on the exemption regime under the negative list and the Mega Exemption Notification, as clarified by the TRU circular, to hold that the appellant's activities in relation to admission to the national park, wildlife sanctuary and tiger reserve were covered by exemption.
Conclusion: The services were held to be exempt from service tax and the demand, interest and penalty could not survive against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a Government authority collects charges in discharge of statutory functions and deposits the collections into the Government exchequer, the activity is not a taxable commercial service if it falls within the statutory exemption framework for admission to a national park, wildlife sanctuary or tiger reserve.