TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 69 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). Since the respondent-firm neither applied for registration nor paid the service tax nor filed the returns, so, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent, as to why the service tax amounting to Rs.93,425/- alongwith interest be not recovered and penalty be not imposed in this relevant connection. 2. In the wake of show cause notice, the respondent filed the reply, interalia, explaining that the vehicles were hired from the market for providing services to IOC. The Freight of the hired vehicles was paid to the owner of the vehicle for each fortnightly basis regularly. It was claimed that as the department did not impose service tax on this job in the past, therefore, the respondent-firm was not aware of such a tax liability. The respondent has also claimed that the firm was not in a good financial position to pay the amount of service tax and payment of first instalment would disturb whole of its business. Although the liability to pay service tax was denied, however, it was prayed that in any event, lenient view be taken against the respondent. 3. The explanation submitted by the respondent did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A2). The argument is that the Tribunal has just bye-passed the relevant legal provisions and set aside the order of CEA No.90 of 2006 3 Commissioner (Appeals) on un-sustainable grounds. Thus, he prayed for acceptance of the appeal. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revenue has placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Madras in case Secy.Federn.of Bus-Operators Assn.of T.N. v. Union of India, 2001 (134) E.L.T. 618 (Mad.). 7. Hailing the impugned order, on the contrary, the learned amicus curiae counsel argued that as such transport services are not covered under service tax laws, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly accepted the appeal of the respondent-firm and no interference is warranted in this relevant behalf. 8. As is evident from the record, rather admitted that the respondent-firm was providing transport services to the IOC at the relevant time. This fact has been acknowledged by the IOC, vide letter No.JPT/ACCTS/29 dated 13.3.2001, in which, it (IOC) admitted having paid Rs.18,68,505/- to the respondent-firm during the period in question on account of 'matadors hired for school going children'. Thus, the facts of this c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours (which may include arrangements for accommodation, sightseeing or other similar services) by any mode of transport, and includes any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle or a contract carriage by whatever name called, covered by a permit, other than a stage carriage permit, granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the rules made thereunder. Similarly, "rent-a-cab scheme operator" means any person engaged in the business of renting of cabs. 15. Thus, a co-joint reading of these provisions would reveal that the service provided by a tour operator in relation to a tour by a rent-a-cab scheme operator in relation to the renting of cabs is liable to pay the service tax under the Act. Meaning thereby, since it is not a matter of dispute that the respondent-firm was providing transport services to the IOC on contract basis, so, it was liable to pay the service tax during the relevant period, as urged on behalf of the revenue. 16. As indicated earlier, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the respondent-firm, vide order (Annexure A2), the operative part of which is, reproduced as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention is undoubtedly correct. While in the unamended provision, there is no reference to a "tourist vehicle" at all, the concept of "tourist vehicle" is now introduced in Section 65(51) and a subtle change has been introduced contemplating only a permit granted under the Act and the Rules in contradistinction to a tourist permit granted under the rules made under the unamended Section 65. It will be seen that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the term "tourist permit" did not occur. It occurred only in Rules 82 to 85. Perhaps, therefore, the language of the old Section 65 (44) contemplated a "tourist permit" granted under the rules. By the amendment, the whole concept has been changed and what is now contemplated is only "a permit granted under the Act and the Rules". Even at the cost of repetition, we may show that a CEA No.90 of 2006 6 tourist permit is not granted under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is not even contemplated therein. The terminology of "tourist permit" is not to be found even in Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is to be found only under the Rules 82 to 85. Therefore, it is obvious that the "tourist permit" is not required for attracting the provisions of....