9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act Even if the petitioners permits are only under section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act for contract carriage, that would not save the petitioners because what is required is not a “tourist permit” but a “user of a tourist vehicle” by the tour operator in his business and further such “tourist vehicle” should have been covered under a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act and/or the Rules framed thereunder - The adjudicating authority is also required to verify whether the assessees possess permits issued in terms of section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act - The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand - ST/509, 614 & 615/2009 - 1106 TO 1108/2010 - Dated:- 21-10-2010 - MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s framed thereunder. The Court rejected the argument that the permit granted under section 74 for contract carriage operators would not attract liability to pay service tax under section 65(52) of the Finance Act, 1994 unless it is a tourist permit but clarified that the only condition is that the vehicle should be a tourist vehicle under section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Paras 41 and 42 of the High Court s judgment are reproduced hereinbelow : 41. We have already rejected that argument holding that a permit contemplated under section 65(52) of the Finance Act need not necessarily be a tourist permit . We have also clarified therein that the only condition is that the vehicle should be a tourist vehicle under section 2(4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness and further such tourist vehicle should have been covered under a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act and/or the Rules framed thereunder. There would be, therefore, no question of treating the holders of the permits under section 74 of the Act for the contract carriage in any different manner. 3. We find that the stand of the appellants is that the vehicles plied by them are not tourist vehicles for the reason that they have not been adopted/maintained or equipped in accordance with the specifications prescribed under rule 128 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and they are, therefore, not tourist vehicles within the meaning of section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the impugned order, there is no finding by the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
