<?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>2003 (8) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125</link>
    <description>Contract carriage operators were treated as falling within the service tax net as tour operators under the Finance Act, 1994 when the vehicles were used for tours. The Court relied on the earlier Division Bench ruling that contract carriage operators were covered by the statutory definition, except for the limited category of spare buses. On that basis, the petitioner was held liable to pay service tax and the challenge to the demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 11:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125</link>
      <description>Contract carriage operators were treated as falling within the service tax net as tour operators under the Finance Act, 1994 when the vehicles were used for tours. The Court relied on the earlier Division Bench ruling that contract carriage operators were covered by the statutory definition, except for the limited category of spare buses. On that basis, the petitioner was held liable to pay service tax and the challenge to the demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>