9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1704 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - Tour Operator Services or not - payment received for rendering on the outbound tour, mostly in the case of holy Haj pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, for the benefits of tourists which included food, accommodation and guidance - HELD THAT - The issue involved in this case is no more res integra as the Tribunal in the case of ATLAS TOURS TRAVELS PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI 2015 (2) TMI 476 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held that outbound tours of Haj-Umrah to Mecca and Madina are not taxable; to come to such a conclusion the Bench relied upon the decision of M/S COX KINGS INDIA LTD., M/S TRAVEL CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND M/S SWAGATAM TOURS PVT. LIMITED VERSUS CST, NEW DELHI 2013 (12) TMI 1024 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ,TRAVEL CORPORATION (INDIA) LTD AND THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX 2014 (8) TMI 826 - CESTAT MUMBAI . Conclusion - The outbound tours of Haj-Umrah to Mecca and Madina are not taxable. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai, comprising M.V. Ravindran and C.J. Mathew, addressed an appeal against order-in-original No. 46/ST/SB/2011-12. The central issue was the service tax liability concerning payments received for outbound tours, specifically the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca, which included services like food, accommodation, and guidance. The lower authorities had deemed these services taxable under Tour Operator Services for the period from September 10, 2004, to September 2008.
The Tribunal referenced the precedent set in Atlas Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd., where it was determined that outbound tours for Haj-Umrah are not taxable. This conclusion was supported by decisions in M/s. Cox & Kings India Ltd. v. CST, New Delhi, and Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v. CST. Notably, the Revenue's appeal against the Atlas Tours decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 781-784 of 2016. The Tribunal also noted a similar favorable ruling in the appellant's own case in final order No. 21589-21597/2015. Consistent with these precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate and held the impugned order unsustainable, thus setting it aside and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
|
