2016 (11) TMI 1294 - AT - Service Tax

Taxability - contract carriages - rent-a-cab service - tour operators service - Held that - There is, compelling logic for, by any other interpretation, would render the taximeter cab-driver/operator also liable to tax. That such has been the intent of the legislature appears far-fetched and we hold that vehicles contracted out in return for payment on actual usage is not taxable under section 65 (105) (o) of Finance Act, 1994. Revenue has not appealed the finding that contracting the use of buses does not fall within the ambit of taxation for rendering tour operator service - we find no merit in the appeals of Revenue and dismiss them. We find in favour of M/s Rahul Travels, M/s Anay Tours & Travels and M/s Deepak Transport Bus Service and set aside the orders impugned in their appeals.

Summary

Issues:
Applicability of tax on 'rent-a-cab' service under section 65(105)(o) of Finance Act, 1994 to operators alleged to be 'rent-a-cab operators'. Interpretation of the definition of 'cab' under section 65(20) of Finance Act, 1994. Taxability of vehicles provided on hire basis. Distinction between renting and hiring of vehicles.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed five appeals concerning the taxability of 'rent-a-cab' service under section 65(105)(o) of Finance Act, 1994. The common issue was the applicability of tax on operators alleged to be 'rent-a-cab operators' as defined in section 65(91) of the Act. The operators claimed they were not renting vehicles but providing services on a per kilometer basis while maintaining possession and responsibility for maintenance. The dispute involved providing motor cars and buses to clients for transport services. The first appellate authority held that the demands against two operators were not sustainable post-amendment in May 2008, as they were not operating tours, a key condition for taxability. The agreements were distance-specific, not period-specific, and previous Tribunal decisions were relied upon to support the finding.

Revenue contended that the impugned order erred in not taxing the contracting out of 'cabs' before June 2007 based on the definition of 'rent-a-cab operator'. The judgment referenced various decisions and argued that contrary decisions existed. The Tribunal considered the arguments and decisions cited by both parties. A previous Tribunal decision and High Court rulings were discussed, emphasizing the essence of possession and control in distinguishing between renting and hiring vehicles. The judgment highlighted the freedom given to hirers under a rent-a-cab scheme, where possession and control lie with the hirer, unlike in hiring scenarios where the owner retains control. The judgment found that vehicles contracted out for actual usage payment were not taxable under the relevant section of the Act.

The judgment dismissed Revenue's appeals, holding in favor of the operators M/s Rahul Travels, M/s Anay Tours & Travels, and M/s Deepak Transport Bus Service. The Tribunal found no merit in Revenue's arguments and set aside the impugned orders in favor of the operators based on the legal analysis provided.