Defective show cause notice and tourist vehicle classification fail where tax demand is unquantified and statutory specifications are not met.

A service tax demand and penalty cannot be sustained where the show cause notice fails to specify the demand period or quantify the tax liability with sufficient certainty. The text also states that tour-operator classification depends on proof that the vehicle meets the prescribed tourist-vehicle specifications under the Motor Vehicles law; where the registration certificate and vehicle particulars do not satisfy those requirements, registration as a tour operator is not justified. On those stated grounds, the impugned order is described as unsustainable and consequential relief follows.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether service tax and penalty could be confirmed when the show cause notices did not specify the period of demand or quantify the tax liability; and (ii) whether the vehicle satisfied the statutory specifications of a tourist vehicle so as to justify registration as a tour operator.

Issue (i): Whether service tax and penalty could be confirmed when the show cause notices did not specify the period of demand or quantify the tax liability.

Analysis: The show cause notices issued in 2002 and 2005 did not set out the period of demand or quantify the service tax. The legal position applied was that a demand cannot be sustained when it is raised only in general terms without a quantified basis in the notice itself.

Conclusion: The demand and penalty could not be confirmed on the basis of such defective notices, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the vehicle satisfied the statutory specifications of a tourist vehicle so as to justify registration as a tour operator.

Analysis: For classification as a tourist vehicle, the vehicle had to comply with the specifications prescribed under Rule 128 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On examination of the registration certificate and the vehicle particulars, the vehicle was found not to satisfy those specifications, and therefore the foundation for treating the appellants as tour operators was absent.

Conclusion: The appellants were not required to be registered as tour operators, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable on both the procedural and substantive grounds, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A service tax demand cannot be upheld unless the show cause notice specifies the demand with sufficient certainty, and classification as a tour operator must be supported by proof that the vehicle meets the prescribed statutory specifications for a tourist vehicle.

---