2008 (10) TMI 37 - AT - Service Tax

There is no evidence to show that the buses in question are tourist vehicles as provided u/s 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In similar situation the Tribunal after considering the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court held that tourist vehicle to be as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and when vehicle is not covered by the description of tourist vehicle and not run as such the person concerned is not covered under the scope of tour operator

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the respondents are providing the service of a tour operator.
2. Classification of the buses in question as tourist vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents in determining the status of the respondents as tour operators.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the revenue against an order where the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondents were not providing tour operator services. The revenue argued that organizing tours constitutes providing tour operator services. The Commissioner relied on evidence showing that the buses in question were ordinary buses operated as 'contract carriage' or 'stage carriage', not tourist vehicles. The revenue cited a Tribunal decision and a High Court decision in support of their position.

2. The respondents contended that the buses were not tourist vehicles as defined under Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. They argued that the buses did not meet the specifications required for tourist vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondents referred to Tribunal decisions in support of their argument. The Tribunal found no evidence that the vehicles in question were tourist vehicles as defined by the Act and Rules.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions and precedents cited by both parties. It noted that for a person to be considered a tour operator, they must be engaged in operating tours in a tourist vehicle as per the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of vehicles conforming to the conditions prescribed under Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules to be classified as tourist vehicles. Since there was no evidence that the buses in question met the criteria of a tourist vehicle as per the Act, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals based on the lack of evidence to categorize the buses as tourist vehicles, following the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant legal precedents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, legal interpretations, and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and legal framework involved in determining the status of the respondents as tour operators.