<?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>2015 (11) TMI 835 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268026</link>
    <description>Tour Operator Service under the pre-10.09.2004 regime applied only to tourist vehicles meeting the prescribed specifications under the Motor Vehicles Rules; mere contract carriage use was insufficient, so demands based on vehicles not shown to be tourist vehicles were unsustainable. After the amendment from 10.09.2004, liability extended to persons planning, scheduling, organising or arranging tours, but fixed-contract supply of buses for transport without tour planning did not fall within the levy. In General Travels, picnic tours were treated as tour arrangement activity and the tax demand was sustained, while penalty was waived because of conflicting legal views and reasonable cause.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 17:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 835 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268026</link>
      <description>Tour Operator Service under the pre-10.09.2004 regime applied only to tourist vehicles meeting the prescribed specifications under the Motor Vehicles Rules; mere contract carriage use was insufficient, so demands based on vehicles not shown to be tourist vehicles were unsustainable. After the amendment from 10.09.2004, liability extended to persons planning, scheduling, organising or arranging tours, but fixed-contract supply of buses for transport without tour planning did not fall within the levy. In General Travels, picnic tours were treated as tour arrangement activity and the tax demand was sustained, while penalty was waived because of conflicting legal views and reasonable cause.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>