2016 (8) TMI 185 - AT - Service Tax

Classification - tour operator service or Rent-a-Cab Service - denial of refund - vehicle was hired out to third person for the purpose of his journey - Held that - Appellant failed to show presence of any of ingredients of section 65 (78) of the Finance Act, 1994 to call it as a tour operator. The essential requirement of that section is that there should be tour and the tour relates to the defined origin and defined destination and such tour is by a vehicle covered by a permit granted under Motor Vehicle Law. There was no tour actually conducted by the appellant in the present case. Neither the appellant adduced evidence in that regard nor also any of the circumstantial evidence could demonstrate in its favour to treat the appellant as a tour operator. - appellant s claim fails on the plea of classification as tour operator. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of services provided by the appellant as Tour Operators Service or Rent-a-Cab Service for the purpose of refund entitlement.

Analysis:
The appellant sought a refund, claiming to provide Tour Operators Service, which the Revenue disputed, asserting that Rent-a-Cab Service was actually provided. The appellant argued that as a registered tour operator, the service provided should not be classified as Rent-a-Cab Service. The key contention was whether the services rendered constituted a tour or merely day-to-day Passenger Transport Service.

The Revenue contended that the appellant did not meet the criteria of Tour Operators Service as defined under section 65 (78) of the Finance Act, 1994. The essential requirement for classification as a tour operator includes conducting a tour with defined origin and destination using a permitted vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Law. The lower authority concluded that the appellant's services did not align with the definition of a tour operator.

Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the records, it was established that the appellant failed to provide evidence of conducting an actual tour. The absence of proof, either direct or circumstantial, led to the dismissal of the appellant's claim to be classified as a tour operator. The decision was influenced by a precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a similar case.

In summary, the appellate tribunal upheld the Revenue's classification of the appellant's services as Rent-a-Cab Service rather than Tour Operators Service, based on the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim to be considered a tour operator. Consequently, the appeal for refund was dismissed.