<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (4) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55</link>
    <description>Service tax applied to stage carriage operators using spare buses, contract carriage operators, and motor cab or maxi cab operators when their activities amounted to touring or renting cabs. The court treated the levy as one on the taxable service rendered, not on passengers carried or on the profession or trade of the operator, and held that the amended scheme covered business renting of cabs without needing the earlier licence framework. On constitutional competence, the levy was upheld under Parliament&#039;s residuary power because Entries 56 and 60 of List II did not apply. The challenge was rejected, subject to the factual question whether a vehicle was in law a tourist vehicle.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2025 17:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55</link>
      <description>Service tax applied to stage carriage operators using spare buses, contract carriage operators, and motor cab or maxi cab operators when their activities amounted to touring or renting cabs. The court treated the levy as one on the taxable service rendered, not on passengers carried or on the profession or trade of the operator, and held that the amended scheme covered business renting of cabs without needing the earlier licence framework. On constitutional competence, the levy was upheld under Parliament&#039;s residuary power because Entries 56 and 60 of List II did not apply. The challenge was rejected, subject to the factual question whether a vehicle was in law a tourist vehicle.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>