<?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>2016 (9) TMI 688 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332427</link>
    <description>Transportation of employees in contract carriages was not taxable as tour operator service. For the period before 10-09-2004, the levy applied only where a tourist vehicle was used, and the vehicles in question were not shown to satisfy the statutory requirements under the Motor Vehicles law and rules, so the demand could not stand. For the period after the amended definition, tax coverage extended to planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours, but the appellant merely provided vehicles on fixed contractual terms for employee transport, without independent tour planning or arranging. The Board circular did not extend the levy to such a pure transport arrangement, so the demand was unsustainable for both periods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:14:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 688 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332427</link>
      <description>Transportation of employees in contract carriages was not taxable as tour operator service. For the period before 10-09-2004, the levy applied only where a tourist vehicle was used, and the vehicles in question were not shown to satisfy the statutory requirements under the Motor Vehicles law and rules, so the demand could not stand. For the period after the amended definition, tax coverage extended to planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours, but the appellant merely provided vehicles on fixed contractual terms for employee transport, without independent tour planning or arranging. The Board circular did not extend the levy to such a pure transport arrangement, so the demand was unsustainable for both periods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>