<?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>2017 (10) TMI 556 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349401</link>
    <description>Transporting employees and school children daily in hired buses or minibuses was not tour operator service because the activity did not involve planning, scheduling, organising or arranging a tour, nor operation of a tour in a tourist vehicle as required by the statutory definition. The record did not show use of a tourist vehicle under the Finance Act and Motor Vehicles law, and the movement was confined to routine carriage between residences, workplaces and schools rather than a pleasure, sightseeing or similar arranged tour. Mere possession of a permit or use of a contract carriage was insufficient, so service tax was not leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 556 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349401</link>
      <description>Transporting employees and school children daily in hired buses or minibuses was not tour operator service because the activity did not involve planning, scheduling, organising or arranging a tour, nor operation of a tour in a tourist vehicle as required by the statutory definition. The record did not show use of a tourist vehicle under the Finance Act and Motor Vehicles law, and the movement was confined to routine carriage between residences, workplaces and schools rather than a pleasure, sightseeing or similar arranged tour. Mere possession of a permit or use of a contract carriage was insufficient, so service tax was not leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>