TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion made by the learned Single Judge. Therefore I do not think that the judgment in Ext.P2 had in any way curtailed the right of the assessing authority to consider on facts as to whether the petitioners are tour operators or not. - Further, the authority had come to a finding that petitioners are not mere hirers. Petitioners are not persons who merely hire the vehicle, whereas it amounts to operation of the tour itself. That apart, the following words in the statute “any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit” is liable to be termed as a tour operator. The finding by the assessing authority is that “the conditions printed on the specimen order form supplied to customers clearly show that the trips are in fact operated by the assessee and is not just a hiring of contract carriage”. It is also found that the staff of the carriage including the driver is operating the trips and tours. - All relevant facts had been considered and the authorities had come to a proper decision which cannot be termed as illegal or perverse - Decided against the petitioner. - W.P. (C) No. 39 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2016 - A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... falling under category tour operator . Petitioner again preferred appeal. The appellate authority again by Ext.P7 order dated 26/2/2008 remitted the matter for fresh consideration. It was observed by the appellate authority as under; I have carefully gone through the records of the case. This appeal is filed not on merits but on limited question of judicial discipline. My predecessor Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter with the following remark. The lower authority is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry and collect evidence to establish whether the appellant are just owners of contract carriages, letting out vehicles on hire and are not engaged in any other service in which case, as per observations of the Hon'ble High Court there would not be any liability at all. The appellants are allowed to make any fresh submissions, in support of their contentions, before the lower authority. Against this Order-in-Original has noted that it is not disputed that the appellants are just owners of registered contract carriages with the RTA in terms of Motor Vehicle Act and they are letting out vehicles to the persons who have booked the vehicle on hire for different fares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the levy. It is further stated that even for the period prior to 10/9/2004, contract carriages were covered under the levy since the definition of a tourist vehicle as per Section 2(43) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 meant a contract carriage as well. In fact, the present definition of 'tour operator' as laid down under Section 65 (115) of the Finance Act, 1994 read as under; Tour operator means any person engaged in the business 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 . Prior to 16/5/2008, and effective from 10/9/2004, the definition reads as under; Tour operator means any person engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours (which may include arrangements for accommodation, sightseeing or other similar services) by any mode of transpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur operators and they are only owners of contract carriages. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners have given vehicles for hire to parties and they are not engaged in rendering service as tour operators. There has been change in the charging Section with effect from 10/9/2004 onwards. I feel if the petitioners are just owners of contract carriages letting vehicles on hire and are not engaged in any other service, then of course there would not be any liability at all. This is therefore a matter which requires enquiry and adjudication as to whether petitioners are engaged in rendering service as tour operators with specific reference to statutory provision prior to and after the amendment. The liability to tax with reference to statutory provisions can be determined only with reference to the specific findings on facts. In the circumstance, petitioners are directed to file a detailed reply to the adjudicating officers who are directed to conduct enquiry, collect evidence and complete the adjudication proceedings after hearing the petitioners. Three weeks' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment is granted to the petitioners to file reply and adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
