M\/s. Wheels Tourists Operator Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Service Tax
2018 (3) TMI 418 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 86 (Tri. – Chennai)
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 6-3-2018
Appeal Nos. ST\/32 and 162\/2008 – Final Order Nos. 40579-40580 \/ 2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri S.Venkatachalam, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe issue in both the appeals being identical, they are heard together and are disposed by this common order.
\n2. Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the business of providing Tourist Transport Service. They render services mainly to travel agency service and corporate entities. Apart from this, they also render services to the individual clients directly. Based on intelligence that the appellant had not been discharging service tax on the actual value of taxabl<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n in the business of rent-a-cab service. To fall under the said definition, the control of cab\/vehicle should be handed over to the person who hired the cab. In the appellant s case, the vehicle was always under the appellant s control and at no point of time the control has been handed over to other travel agents for their use. The vehicles \/ cabs were engaged by the other travels agents mostly for the journey of the foreign tourists and also to some extent for domestic clients. The said travel agents send the vehicles to places of visit arranged by them. The vehicles were engaged for the said trip as agreed on kilometer basis and the vehicle was always under the control of the appellant and driven by the appellant s driver and therefore the appellant have only provided transport services. The activity therefore does not fall under the category of rent-a-cab operator service. Accordingly, no service tax can be fixed on the appellant. He relied upon the following case laws:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n en held in favour of the department. That the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarkhand in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sachin Malhotra (supra) has been rendered without taking note of the earlier decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Vijay Travels (supra). He submitted that the said decision may be applied to the present case as the facts being the same. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Wheels Tourists Operator Versus Commissioner of GST & Central ExciseService Tax2018 (3) TMI 418 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 86 (Tri. – Chennai)CESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 6-3-2018Appeal Nos. ST\/32 and 162\/2008 – Final Order Nos. 40579-40580 \/ 2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, … Continue reading “M\/s. Wheels Tourists Operator Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10816","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10816","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10816"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10816\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10816"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10816"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10816"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n a. Commis<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. Heard both sides.
\n7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the activity of providing cab to other travel agents for rendering services to foreign tourist would fall under the definition of rent-a-cab service. The definition of rent-a-cab scheme operator as under section 65(91) is any person engaged in the business of renting of cabs. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sachin Malhotra (supra) has analyzed the meaning of Renting . It was held that renting is different from hiring.
\n8. In para 15.4, the Commissioner has noted that the appellant provided their v<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n