2008 (5) TMI 195 - AT - Service Tax

Department has claimed the appellants as Tour Operator Services but the appellants denied it - They submit that they were taking the employees of the State Government company to their respective residences - appellants are not working as Tour Operators but were working as Contract Carriages. Prima facie, the earlier order of the Tribunal cited by the learned Counsel granting waiver of pre-deposit would apply to the facts of this case also - Therefore, the stay application is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of services as 'Tour Operator Services' for Service tax liability.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the appellant, who provided transportation services to employees of a State Government company, should be classified as 'Tour Operator Services' and thereby be liable to pay Service tax. The department claimed the appellants as 'Tour Operator Services,' but the appellants denied this classification, asserting that they were only contract carriages and, therefore, not liable to pay Service tax. The appellant relied on a previous ruling in the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, where it was held that the transport of employees from various places of work and back does not fall under the category of 'Tour Operator Service.'

The learned SDR, representing the department, argued that the issue had been settled in the Revenue's favor based on a Chennai High Court order in a different case. However, the appellant's counsel distinguished this judgment by highlighting that the challenge in the Madras High Court case was regarding the leviability of Service tax on Maxi Cab Operators and not on the classification aspect raised by the appellant.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the Madras High Court judgment did not address the classification under a specific category but focused on the leviability of Service tax on Maxi Cab Operators. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not operating as Tour Operators but as Contract Carriages. Citing the earlier Tribunal order granting waiver of pre-deposit in a similar case, the Tribunal allowed the stay application, waived the pre-deposit, and stayed the recovery of the amount. Importantly, the Tribunal specified that the stay order would remain in effect even after the expiration of 180 days.

This judgment clarifies the distinction between 'Tour Operator Services' and 'Contract Carriages' for the purpose of Service tax liability, emphasizing the specific activities and classifications under the relevant legal framework. It underscores the importance of analyzing the nature of services provided by an entity to determine the appropriate tax treatment and liability, taking into account previous legal precedents and interpretations.