2008 (9) TMI 188 - HC - Service Tax

Appellant providing vehicles to companies - adjudicating authority as well as appellate authorities have discussed the entire issue with regard to vehicles in respect of which services provided - In view of finding given by the appellate authorities that they do not fall within the meaning of Tour Operator , no opinion is expressed in present proceedings as to whether the contract carriage vehicles would fall within the category of Tour Operator Service - no substantial questions of law arises

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the definition of "tour operator" under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Determination of whether a "contract carriage" can be considered a "tourist vehicle."
3. Justification of the Tribunal's decision regarding the service provided by the respondent not falling under "tour operator" services.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of the definition of "tour operator" as provided under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner of Central Excise filed a Tax Appeal questioning whether the "tour" service provided by the respondent to their clients under contract in vehicles covered by permits granted under the Motor Vehicles Act as "contract carriage" would fall under the definition of "tour operator." The High Court examined the arguments and noted that the appellate authorities had already discussed the issue concerning the services provided by the respondent to specific clients. The Court refrained from expanding the scope of the proceedings and concluded that, based on the facts and findings by the appellate authorities, no substantial questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

2. Another issue raised in the case was the determination of whether a "contract carriage" that is constructed, adopted, equipped, and maintained in accordance with specified regulations could be classified as a "tourist vehicle." The Court, however, did not delve into this aspect extensively due to the specific focus on the services provided by the respondent and the conclusion reached regarding the applicability of the "Tour Operator" definition. The judgment did not provide a definitive answer to this issue, as the decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the findings of the appellate authorities.

3. The final issue involved the justification of the Tribunal's decision that the service provided by the respondent did not fall under the category of "tour operator" services. The High Court, after considering the arguments presented and the orders passed by the authorities below, upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings of the appellate authorities, no substantial questions of law arose that warranted further examination or intervention by the Court.