75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

August 2011

(2011) 22 STR 558 (Tri.-Ahmd.) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar v. Gujarat Travels.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Tour operator service — Vehicle not registered as a tourist vehicle but registered with the Regional Transport Authority under the PCOP (Contract Carriage Permit) — Whether liable to pay service tax — Appellate Authority holding that assessee not covered prior to 10-9-2004 when ambit expanded to cover any mode of transport — No reason to interfere in order.

Facts:
The respondents operating the tours in an omni-bus registered with the Regional Transport Authority covered under PCOP (Contract Carriage Permit) were not paying service tax on the ground that the tour was not being conducted in a tourist vehicle as defined in the Motor Vehicle Act. The respondents cited the case of Secretary, Federation of Bus Operators Association of Tamil Nadu, Chennai v. UOI and Ors., 2006 (2) STR 411 (Mad.), wherein it was held that the tour conducted by a contract carriage (and not by a tourist vehicle) do not fall within the definition of Tour Operator.

Held:
It was held that there was no reason to interfere in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the respondents were not required to pay service tax. The Revenue’s appeal was rejected.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

XBRL filing of balance sheet and profit and loss account

Exposure Draft on XBRL taxonomy for Commercial and Industrial (C&I) entities.