TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13.02.2007 constituted a society called the "Gujarat Lion Conservation Society". The tourists are allowed to enter the Gir Forest subject to the permits granted by the Ministry of Forest & Environment during specified days and time period. Further, the tourists are allowed to enter the forest area in permitted vehicles only. However, the Appellant has no role in arranging the vehicles for the tourists, the tourists are required make their own arrangements of vehicles from the local vehicle owners who are permitted by the Forest Department of Gujarat. The Appellant also charges the tourists for any videography or photography in the forest area. The Devaliya Gir Interpretation Park is a facility of a particular eco-tourism zone that has been created to reduce the overload of tourists from the Gir Forest and also provide the tourists the opportunity of viewing lions and other animals in their natural habitat. The Appellant issues permits to the tourists to enter the Devaliya Park also. Further, the Appellant also provides government buses to the tourists to facilitate their visit to the Devliya Park. Further, the Government of Gujarat has also setup a guest house at Sasan, District....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....set submits that a similar issue of demand of Service Tax under the category of "Tour Operator Services" on permits issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Ranthambore arose before the Hon'ble CESTAT New Delhi in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forest and Field Director v. CCE, Jaipur, 2018 (4) TMI 777-CESTAT NEW DELHI. The Hon'ble CESTAT in the said case observed that the demand of Service Tax under the category of "Tour Operator Services" was not sustainable on the ground that the activities carried out by the Appellant were a statutory duty. Therefore, the amount recovered by the Appellant was a fee that was collected as per the provisions of the relevant statute for performance of its statutory functions and the same cannot be considered as a consideration for purposes of organizing a tour. A.2. In light of the above decision, it is submitted that the Appellant cannot be made liable to pay Service Tax on the amount collected by it from the tourists in furtherance of discharging a statutory function. A.3. The Appellant also relies on a decision given by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Rajkot wherein on similar facts and circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was discharging a sovereign function ie. conservation of forest on behalf of the Government of Gujarat. Therefore, it is submitted that the Appellant cannot be subjected to the levy of Service Tax. B.6. In view of the aforesaid submission, the Impugned Orders are liable to be set aside. C. The Ld. Commissioner has erroneously held that the Appellant is a Society of the Government. C.1. It is submitted that the Ld. Commissioner and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) both had erroneous understanding of the facts as they had observed that the Appellant was rendering the Appellant in the capacity of a trust and not as a government authority and was therefore, liable to pay service tax C.2. It is submitted that the Gujarat State Lion Conservation Society had no role in issuing permits to the tourists. The Society in fact has no authority to issue such permits. The Appellant is therefore, not a Society or a Trust but, an authority who has been authorized by the government to issue permits to its visitors. C.3. Therefore, Impugned Orders are liable to be set aside on this ground also. D. The alleged consideration for the services has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les made thereunder Explanation, For the purpose of this clause, the expression "tour" does not include a journey organized or arranged for use by an educational body than a commercial training or coaching centre, imparting skill or knowledge or lessons on any subject or field;" E3. The scope of the above services was further clarified by CBEC vide Circular D.O.F 334/1/2008-TRU dared 29.02.2008 wherein the CBEC clarified that a tour operator is requined to conduct the tour in permitted motor vehicles only. E.4. It is submitted that the Appellant had not provided any vehicles to the tourists. The Appellant only facilitates the tourists through Government buses to visit Gir Interpretation Park and not otherwise. This fact has also been accepted and appreciated by the Ld. Commissioner which is sufficient to delete the entire demand against the Appellant under the head of "Tour Operator Services". The definition and CBEC Circular also make it clear that a tour operator must provide services in permitted motor vehicles. As the Appellant is not providing any motor vehicles to the visitors other than to visit Gir Interpretation Zone, Devaliya in government buses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st as enumerated in Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. F.4. The Appellant relies on the Education Guide dated 20.06.2012 issued by the CBEC wherein it was clarified that "Government" includes the Departments and Offices of the Central or the State Government or the UT Administrations which carry out the functions in the name and by the order of the President of India or the Governor of the State. F.5. It is an undisputed fact that the Appellant is an officer/ employee of the Government of Gujarat and was carrying out its activities in that capacity only. Also, the fees collected by the Appellant gets deposited in the Consolidated Government Fund only and i F.6. Therefore, it is submitted that the activities of the Appellant are covered under negative list. Thus, the Appellant cannot be made subject to the demand of Service Tax. G. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it is submitted that the Appellant has been wrongfully impleaded as a party to the proceedings. G.1. It is submitted that the Appellant has been wrongfully impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Even if the Department has a valid case, the same should be against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....each of the categories for the period post 2012 cannot be sustained in present case because the Ld. Commissioner has relied upon the definition of taxable services as existed prior to 01.07.2012. 1.1. The Appellant submits in present case that demand of Service Tax is based on the definition of services as existed prior to 01.07.2012. However, the entire period of dispute in Show Cause Notices dated 14.03.2016 and 22.03.2018 falls after 01.07.2012. The demand of Service Tax on the definition based in erstwhile regime cannot be confirmed. The Show Cause Notices have failed to analyse the transactions properly and mechanically raised the demand of Service tax. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions: a) Reynolds Petrochem Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Surat, 2022 (7) TMI 656-CESTAT AHMEDABAD b) Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, 2014 (36) STR 1291 (Tri- Mum) c) Frisco Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Dehradun 2022-VIOL-49-CESTAT- Del-ST J. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, computation of liability is incorrect. 1.1. Relying on the decision of CCE v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., 2002 (49) RLTI (SC), it is submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er has the Department brought any evidence which can establish that the Appellant has suppressed anything from the Department. Therefore, the Appellant cannot be said to have had intention to evade tax by suppressing facts. L.3. The Appellant further submits that no penalty can be imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 as none of the conditions specified therein have been met and therefore the proposal to levy penalty under Section 77 is without basis and does not stand scrutiny. L.4. It is further submitted that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Department involve issues related to interpretation of provisions of service tax law. Where questions of law and fact are to be decided, penalty cannot be imposed. Further, Section 80 also provides that no penalty can be imposed on the assessee if the failure under Sections 76, 77 or 78 is due to reasonable cause. Hence, penalty cannot be imposed on the Appellant. M. No interest is payable. M.1. It is submitted by the Appellant that when demand of service tax proposed to be imposed is itself not sustainable, the question of interest on such demand cannot arise. 16. In view of the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....velopment Corporation on behalf of the Forest Department. W.e.f. 1-10-2008, the said work was being done by the Forest Department. (iii) The Forest Department was performing the sovereign function of protecting and improving the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country as mandated under article 48A of the Constitution of India. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 provides for Notification and Management of National Parks for conservation of wild life. As per the provisions of the above Act, entry of persons into the National Park is restricted and the Forest Department was obligated to carry-out the same and for this purpose, the Govt of Rajasthan has issued notification and guidelines prescribing the fees to be charged for entry of tourists into the national park as sell as prescribing the total number of vehicles and types of vehicles allowed for entry into the national par. (iv) The above facts clearly demonstrated that the appellant department was performing its sovereign function in restricting the entry of tourists and vehicles in Ranthambore. (v) Out of the amounts recovered from the tourists towards the vehicles made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tours (which may include arrangements for accomodation, sightseeing or other similar services by any mode of transport, and includes any person engaged in the business of operation 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. Explanation .- For the purpose of this clause, the expression "tour" does not include a journey organized or arranged for use by an educational body than a commercial training or coaching centre, imparting skill or knowledge or lessons on any subject or field. 8. It is to be noted that the definition prior to 16-5-2000 as well as subsequent to that date is applicable to any person engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours. 9. The main argument advanced by the appellant against such levy of service tax is that it is a department of the State Govt of Rajasthan and is not engaged in the business of operator tour. It has further been submitted that all activities carried-out by the department in the Ranthambore National Park is towards dischar....