9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose of exclusion from tax, vehicles used by service providers is also to be so construed - appellant-assessee is entitled to exemption of tax on collections generated from use of ‘tourist buses’ for passengers other than tour etc. The impugned order has quantified the collection from conducted tour, charter etc as ₹ 91,21,825 for 2006-07 on which tax of ₹ 4,46,605 has been determined. The remaining amount confirmed in impugned order pertains to use of ‘tourist vehicles’ and does not sustain - penalty confirmed - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant-assessee. - APPEAL No. ST/606/2011 & ST/607/2011 - ORDER No.A/94086-94087/16/STB. - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with tourist permits or contract carriage permits and M/s SRS Travels, their direct sales agent, would remit collections from sale of tickets after deducting commission. 3. Ever since the introduction of this levy, definition of tour operator has undergone changes on a number of occasions. Similarly, a number of notifications have been issued for providing abatement and exclusions. Pertinent to the dispute before us is notification no. 20/2009-ST dated 7 th July 2009 which exempts the taxable service : referred to in sub-clause (n) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, provided or to be provided to any person, by a tour operator having a contract carriage permit for inter-state or intrastate transportation of passen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from imposing any penalty. In arriving at the exclusion from the retrospective exemption, the adjudicating Commissioner was disinclined to consider the tourist vehicles to have been covered; in so inferring, it was held that vehicles issued with contract carriage permits was specified and there was no reference to tourist vehicles. It was also held that collections of ₹ 91,21,825 relating to tours offered to holy places, excursions, school trips and marriage functions are not excluded from tax. 5. Appellant-assessee disputes the finding that tourist vehicles are not eligible for the benefit of the retrospective exemption. It was pointed out that this benefit was originally accorded prospectively by notification no. 20/2009- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Validation Act in 2011 to extend this parity with retrospective effect from 2000 is adequate evidence of this. That the taxability was itself fraught with much confusion is demonstrated by the need to resort to the rarely-used instrument of retrospective legislation. Invoking the ingredients of section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 in these circumstances can, hardly, be justified. However, to the extent that tax is leviable, it was not in accordance with the law for the adjudicating Commissioner to refrain from invoking section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. 8. The contention of Revenue that the adjudicating authority should have ascertained the veracity of the claim of buses to be in possession of only contract carriage permits is tenable only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our etc. There is no difference in the treatment accorded to the two categories of vehicles. Consequently, appeal of Revenue for re-quantification after ascertainment of the certification of the vehicles is not sustainable. 10. We find that the impugned order has quantified the collection from conducted tour, charter etc as ₹ 91,21,825 for 2006-07 on which tax of ₹ 4,46,605 has been determined. The remaining amount confirmed in impugned order pertains to use of tourist vehicles and does not sustain. 11. In view of the above, tax of ₹ 4,46,605 for 2006-07 stands confirmed along with interest thereon. M/s Benzy Travels is also liable to penalty under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order is so modified. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
