Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2352 2004 SLD 2352 (2004) 268 ITR 391
Madras High Court
WRIT PETITION NO. 46419 OF 2002 W.P.M.P. NO. 67527 OF 2002 AND W.V.M.P. NO. 1242 OF 2003 AUGUST 22, 2003
P. SATHASIVAM, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Sri Pandyan Travels

v.

Commissioner of Central Excise*

Law:

Section:

Section 65(52) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Service Tax - Whether as per section 65(52), a contract carriage operator is covered under definition of 'tour operator' and is liable to pay service tax - Held, yes CASE REVIEW Secretary, Federation of Bus Operators Association of Tamil Nadu v. UOI [2001]134 ELT 618 (Mad.)/[2001] 2 MLJ 590 followed & relied upon. CASES REFERRED TO Secretary, Federation of Bus Operators Association of Tamil Nadu v. UOI [2002] 121 Taxman 618 (Mad.) [Para 5]. Mrs. Radha Gopalan for the Petitioner. K. Veeraraghavan for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. By consent of both parties main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Questioning the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Service-tax Cell, Chennai-II, Chennai-35, made in C.No. IV/16/368/2001-STC dated 18th October, 2002, directing the petitioner to register and pay service tax, Sri Pandyan Travels has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : The petitioner is a contract carriage operator, operating contract car-riages, permits of which are issued by the State Transport Authority, Chennai. When the respondent wanted to impose service tax in respect of the petitioner, they filed a writ petition before this Court and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench along with several other writ petitions with a direction to the petitioners to raise their objections with the concerned authorities who issued notices. It is further stated in the judgment that the authority would decide as to whether the petitioners' vehicles are the tourist vehicles as contemplated under section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act. When the petitioner has received notice from the respondent dated 30th September, 2002, he sent a reply enclosing the judgment of this Court dated 2nd October, 2002 stating that they are not having tourist vehicles as contemplated in the judgment and also pro-duced the registration certificate of the vehicles to prove that the petitioner is not having tourist vehicles and they are having only ordinary contract carriages. In spite of the said reply, the respondent herein has requested the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492