Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
II. Tribunal :
7. New evidences produced by authorities relied upon :
Shrinath Tourist Agency v. CCE, Jaipur, [2008 13 STT 176
(New Delhi – CESTAT)].
â Service tax along
with penalty was demanded from the appellant under the category of Tour
Operator. The appellant contended that they were only booking agents of other
tour operators and were not covered as tour operators. Copies of the agents’
licence issued by the RTO, Udaipur were produced in support of contention.
The Revenue challenged this after getting information from
the RTO, Udaipur that the appellant was having 19 all-India tourist permits and
produced copy of letter received from the RTO, Udaipur. Thus, the Revenue
claimed that the appellant had tour permits and was working as tour operator and
therefore liable for service tax as tour operator.
It was held that since the evidence produced by the Revenue
was not available before the lower authority, the case was fit to be remanded to
the adjudicating authority.