9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch clearly demonstrate that during the course of agreement effective control over vehicle is with APSRTC, it is found that in the light of clarification issued by Central Government in D.O.F No 344/1/2008 TRU dated 29-02- 2008, has clarified that Supply of tangible goods for use and leviable to VAT / Sales Tax as deemed Sales of Goods, is not covered under the scope of the Service and hence the present activity of Hiring of Vehicles to APSRTC cannot be covered under Rent a Cab Service , but is covered under Transfer of Right to Use , which is deemed sale and liable to Sales Tax. The activity in question provided by the Appellant, is in the nature of Transfer of Right to Use and not Rent a Cab - the impugned order set aside - ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after, RTC got the hired bus registered with the concerned RTA as RTC vehicle. Further, RTC took permit and paid the road tax and also reimbursed insurance(s), provident fund. Further, RTC also reimbursed the amount of VAT, payable on deemed sale (hire charges). 3. Subsequently by Finance Act 2007 with effect from 01.06.2007 the Section 65(20) was substituted as under, - expanding the scope of coverage Cab have been defined in Section 65(20) of the Finance Act 1994 as - i) A motor cab or ii) A maxi cab or iii) Any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than 12 passengers , excluding the driver, for hire or reward; Provided that the maxi cab refers to in sub-clause in (ii), or motor vehicle referred to in sub-cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority ignored the stay granted by Hon ble High Court, and relying on the ruling of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S K Kareemun reported at [2015-TIOL-80-CESTAT-Banglore], confirmed the demand. 6. Being aggrieved appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was dismissed, upholding the adjudication order. Being aggrieved the appellant is before the Tribunal. 7. Assailing the impugned order, Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Ashish Kumar Agarwal interalia urges that the Appellant has contented that their activity falls under Transfer of Right to Use , a deemed sale of goods under Article 366 (29A)(d) of Constitution. 8. The Learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted a copy of the Wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... angible Goods . We have gone through the judgements placed by both the parties along with various circulars, Memo, Circular issued by Commercial Taxes of Andhra Pradesh and APSRTC in relation to hiring of Vehicles. We have gone through the terms of agreement / tender which clearly demonstrate that during the course of agreement effective control over vehicle is with APSRTC, and we found that in the light of clarification issued by Central Government in D.O.F No 344/1/2008 TRU dated 29-02- 2008, has clarified that Supply of tangible goods for use and leviable to VAT / Sales Tax as deemed Sales of Goods, is not covered under the scope of the Service and hence the present activity of Hiring of Vehicles to APSRTC cannot be covered under Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
