TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Finance Act? Held that: - the activity done by the respondent does not come under the definition of tour operator, which means any person engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organising or arranging tour (which may include arrangement for accommodation, site seeing or other similar services) by any mode of transport and includes any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourists vehicle covered by a permit as granted under the Motor Vehicle Acts and Rules thereunder - it is nowhere case of the Revenue that respondents have used a tourist vehicle as defined under the provisions of the Finance Act read with the Motor Vehicles Act. Merely because the respondents are holding the permit, they do not beco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion provided under the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the aforesaid appellants as a tour operator are liable to pay Service Tax in terms of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the said Act. The appellants had (i) failed to take registration under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994; (ii) failed to pay Service Tax due under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1974; (iii) failed to file periodical returns in form of ST 3 under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and (iv) also failed to submit a list of all accounts maintained by them in relations to tax under Rule 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,32,330.00) along with interest and the same was recoverable from the appellants under proviso to Section 73 (1) and Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively and the appellants liable for penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority passed the orders as below. Appellant Confirmed Service Tax as shown below alongwith interest under proviso to Section 73 (1) and Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 Imposed penalty under Section 76 @ ₹ 200.00 per default Imposed penalty under Section 77 Imposed penalty under Section 78 Appellant No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial purpose to learn or look around the place visited. Contract carriages, of course, is one of the basis for holding a person as tour operator but it is necessarily required that there should be an involvement of 'tourists vehicle', which is not the case here in. Moreover, it is not on the record that service was performed in the tourist vehicle. The tourist's vehicle is required to confirm to the specifications as provided under Rule 128 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 read with Section 243 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further a fact on record that the vehicles of the respondent assessee were hired by IPCL for transporting their staff/employees/school children from residential areas to the factory/school and back. Such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... angement for accommodation, site seeing or other similar services) by any mode of transport and includes any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourists vehicle covered by a permit as granted under the Motor Vehicle Acts and Rules thereunder. We also find that it is nowhere case of the Revenue that respondents have used a tourist vehicle as defined under the provisions of the Finance Act read with the Motor Vehicles Act. We further find that similar issue have been considered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in Secretaries Federation of bus owners Versus Union of India reported at 2006 (2) S.T.R. 411, it was held that such activities do not come under the purview of tour operator service as defined in the Finance Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
