TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, show cause dated 18.12.2008 was issued wherein service tax demand of Rs.98,424/- in respect of booking commission, Rs.1,11,82,698/- for Tour Operator and Rs.9,18,286/- in respect of luggage booking was proposed. The demand for Tour operator was raised on the ground that even though the appellant was transporting passengers, but as the buses were in possession of Tourist Permit, hence the appellant is liable for service tax under the category of "Tour Operator". The demands were confirmed by the Commissioner vide Order-in- Original No. 16/COMMR/ST/ IND/2009 dated 06.05.2009 along with penalties. 3. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal which vide Final Order No. ST/A/52281/2015-CU[DB] dated 30.04.2015 dropped the demand of Rs. 9,18,286/- under Business Support Service but confirmed the demand of Rs. 98,424/- on commission on booking. In respect of demand under the category of Tour Operator service, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to examine the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 20/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 under which the person rendering passenger service even though through buses havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellant is from operation of Tours. The department had not adduced a single evidence in support of his conclusion. The Adjudicating Authority had reached this conclusion only as the single basis that the amounts indicated under these heads were large. 7. The Appellant in this context, had submitted a Chartered Accountant's Certificate and certified copies of the ledger of all the ticket bookings done by the Appellant from their Outstation offices and Head offices, which clearly indicate that the said amount in the ledgers pertain to individual ticket booking. A sample copy of daily voucher and tickets also indicates the daily receipt amount from sale of tickets appearing in the ledger. A perusal of the said ledgers and vouchers makes it amply clear that the receipts are on account of sale of tickets for daily passenger inter state transportation of passenger and not from any "Tour Operator Services". 8. The learned Counsel also submitted that the said notification had been subsequently amended vide notification No. 20/2009 dated 07.07.2009 wherein exemption was extended to tour operator services having contract carriage permit for inter state or intra state transportation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pass the following order: - (i) the demand of Rs. 98,424/- is upheld as uncontested (ii) demand of Rs. 9,18,286/- under business support service is setaside (iii) as regards the demand under tour operator service, the case is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication on the limited aspect of eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of exemption under notification No. 20/2009 - ST, dated 07.07.2009 has made applicable with effect from 01.04.2000, invokability of the extended period and imposability of mandatory penalty under section 78 ibid. We make it clear that the adjudicating authority shall determine the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of the said notification keeping in view the fact that the vehicles involved were tourist vehicles and not stage carriages. (iv) The demand and penalties will be recomputed based on the adjudicating authority is finding regarding eligibility(or otherwise) of the appellant for the benefit of the notification No. 20/2009-ST, dated 07.07.2009, and invoke ability of the extended period and the provisions of section 78 ibid." 12. In this regard, it would be appropriate to reproduce the findings of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eet for the respective years. There is no cogent substantive evidence that the Noticee have provided their bus services for marriage or picnic. Hence this allegation is fictious and not tenable. Even if it is considered that the amount of bus rent contract booking pertains to the booking of buses for picnic/marriage etc in that case also the same cannot be taxed as the Noticee has not organized any tour and even this amount is considered as taxable than too it can be seen that in some of the years, it is below the exemption limit of Rs 10 lacs and hence eligible for exemption. I do not find merit in the above submission made by the Noticee. I observe on the basis of documents available on record that the journey carried out by the Noticee from one town to another town as evident from the printed leaflet is a point to point transport and is a "TOUR" as defined under section 65(113) of the Finance Act 1994. It is also evident that the Noticee was engaged in planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tour in buses holding tourist vehicle permit granted under Motor Vehicle Act 1988. Copies of permit of 25 buses submitted by the Noticee being plied by them reveals that the permit are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly for the year 2007-08 they submitted a ledger with the heading "Head Office cash booking" for Rs. 5,18,35,892/-. I find that the amount shown in these ledgers pertains to picnic/ marriage, tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire service etc. as the amounts shown are very big and cannot be for individual passenger bookings and there is no supporting document that the amount pertains to passenger booking. I find that this amount is not eligible for exemption under Notification No 20/2009-Service Tax dated 7.7.2009 as these bookings are as against buses holding tourist vehicle permit granted under motor vehicle Act 1988 issued the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior for tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire service as such they are not eligible for exemption granted under Finance Act, 2011-2012 under Tour Operator service to tour operators with contract carriage permit. In fact this amount pertains to amount received towards service provided in capacity of TOUR OPERATOR against buses having tourist permit and there is no evidence available on record which shows that this amount was received towards individual bookings. In the light of Notification No 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia" 14. Subsequently, as highlighted by the learned Counsel, a corrigendum 334/8/2009 dated 31.08.2009 was issued to the aforesaid Notification no. 20/2009 -ST dated 07.07.2009 which read as follows: "Tour Operator Service-Exemption to contract carriage permit holders- Corrigendum to Notification No. 20/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 20/2009-Service Tax, dated the 7th July, 2009 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide G.S.R. 492(E), dated the 7th July, 2009, at Page 89, in line 18, For "contract carriage permit", read "contract carriage or tourist vehicles with a permit". 15. With the issue of this corrigendum, we observe that exemption was available to the service of tour operator for interstate or intrastate transportation of passengers, other than for the purpose of tourism, even for vehicles plying with tourist permit. 16. However, we note that the adjudicating authority in para 21.11 of the impugned order has categorically held that the appellant did not submit any documents in support of his contention. No cogent explan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....den on the other unexempted class of tax payers and should be construed against the subject in case of ambiguity. It is an equally well known principle that a person who claims an exemption has to establish his case. Indeed, in the very case of Parle Exports (P) Ltd. relied upon by Shri Narasimhamurthy, it was observed : "While interpreting an exemption clause, liberal interpretation should be imparted to the language thereof, provided no violence is done to the language employed. It must, however, be borne in mind that absurd results of construction should be avoided." The choice between a strict and a liberal construction arises only in case of doubt in regard to the intention of the legislature manifest on the statutory language. Indeed, the need to resort to any interpretative process arises only where the meaning is not manifest on the plain words of the statute. If the words are plain and clear and directly convey the meaning, there is no need for any interpretation. It appears to us the true rule of construction of a provision as to exemption is the one stated by this Court in Union of India v. Wood Paper Ltd. [1990 (47) E.L.T. 500 (SC) = 1990 (4) SCC 256] : "...Truly ....