2014 (5) TMI 914 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Tour Operator Service - operating contract carriage buses from Hyderabad to Shridi - Held that - Since the service provided by the petitioner during the relevant period falls within the ambit of tour as defined in Section 65 (113); the petitioner falls within the ambit of the definition of tour operator defined in Section 65 (115); and the service provided by the petitioner falls within the ambit of the taxable service enumerated in Section 65 (115)(n), the petitioner cannot gainfully contend that it did not provide the taxable tour operate service. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:

1. Confirmation of service tax levy on the appellant for providing 'Tour Operator' services.
2. Interpretation of exemption Notification No.20/2009-ST.
3. Definition of 'Tour' and 'Tour Operator' under the Finance Act, 1994.
4. Comparison of case law precedents regarding tour operator services.
5. Application of contract carriage permits within the definition of 'Tour Operation'.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore involved the confirmation of a service tax levy on the appellant for providing 'Tour Operator' services. The appellant had preferred an appeal against the adjudication order confirming the service tax levy, interest, and penalties. The liability was based on the appellant providing tour operator services during a specific period. The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No.20/2009-ST, which was rejected by the Commissioner, stating that the services provided fell outside the scope of the exemption due to involving conducted tours and not just transportation services.

The definition of 'Tour' and 'Tour Operator' under the Finance Act, 1994, was crucial in determining the appellant's liability. The Tribunal noted that the services provided by the appellant fell within the ambit of taxable tour operator services as per the defined sections. The appellant's argument, citing a previous Tribunal decision, was countered by the Revenue's reliance on a Madras High Court judgment, which supported the inclusion of contract carriage within the definition of 'Tour Operation.'

The Tribunal found no error in the adjudication order passed by C.C.E. & S.T., Hyderabad-II, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of understanding the legal definitions and precedents in the context of service tax liabilities related to tour operator services. The decision provided clarity on the application of relevant laws and notifications in determining tax liabilities for such services, ultimately upholding the original order.