Dismissed

V.K.Rakesh v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise

Kerala HC7 Dec 2016WP(C)/39/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order imposing service tax on contract carriage operators. The court upheld the department's finding that the petitioners operated tours in tourist vehicles, making them liable under the Service Tax Act, rejecting the claim that they were merely vehicle hirers.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirming the demand of service tax is upheld.

V.K.Rakesh Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 39 of 2011 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. V.K. RAKESH, R.R. TRAVELS, KARTHIKA TOURIST COMPLEX, OPP. SDV BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, DISTRICT COURT ROAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

2. SMT.P.G. VIMALA DEVI (RETD.), EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APPROVED VALUER, VASUDEVAPURAM, CHERTHALA CANAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN, SRI.K.T.THOMAS.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., COCHIN-682 018.

¶12

2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM II DIVISION, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN, KATHRIKKADAVU, KALOOR P.O., COCHIN-682 017.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC. SRI.RAJESH. B., SC.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2016, THE COURT ON 07/12/2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 39 of 2011 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.08.2005 IN W.P.(C) NO.36353/2004.
EXT.P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.07.2005 IN W.P.(C) NO.10865/2003
EXT.P3	:	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.11.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	:	TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF OBJECTION ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXT.P5	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.116/2006 DATED 26.05.06 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), COCHIN.
EXT.P6	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2006 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.41/2008 ST DATED 26.2.08 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), COCHIN.
EXT.P8	:	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 19.02.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9	:	TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET & PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR, 2004-05.
EXT.P10	:	TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET & PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR, 2005-06
EXT.P11	:	TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET & PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR, 2006-07
EXT.P12	:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.09.2008 ISSUED BY INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA
EXT.P13	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.06.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXT.P14	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶25

============= W.P. (C) No. 39 of 2011

¶26

===================

¶27

Dated this, the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P14 order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ernakulam Division, confirming a demand of `3,70,567/- as service tax, along with education cess in terms of Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 in respect of the petitioner for financial years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, and penalty as provided under Sections 70, 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Petitioners also seek for a declaration that they are not exigible for service tax liability for the aforesaid period.

¶30

The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the 1^st petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of letting contract carriage vehicle on hire as per the requirements of customers. According to the petitioners, they are

¶31

not providing any other service other than giving on hire the vehicle.

¶32

Steps were taken by the Superintendent of Excise,

¶33

W.P(C) No.39/11

¶34

-:2:-

¶35

Alleppey for registering the petitioners under the category of “Tour Operator” during 2004-05. Petitioners filed WP(C) No. 36353/2004. By Ext.P1 judgment dated 29/8/2005, this Court disposed of the writ petition as per the directions contained in the judgment in OP No.10865/2003 and connected cases. Ext.P2 is the judgment in OP No.10865/2003 wherein this Court held that persons who give vehicles for hire to parties are not engaged in rendering service as tour operators and therefore, they have no liability to pay service tax. However, the matter was remitted back for considering such issues. Petitioner preferred a detailed statement and the matter was heard. However, they were directed to pay service tax along with interest as per order dated 30/11/2005. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order as Appeal No.116/2006. The appeal was allowed as per order dated 26/5/2006 remitting the matter back to the assessing authority to conduct a detailed enquiry and collect evidence to establish that the petitioners are just owners of contract carriage, letting out vehicles on hire and are not engaged in any other service as per the observation of the High Court. After the matter

¶36

W.P(C) No.39/11

¶37

-:3:-

¶38

was remitted back, the assessing authority held that petitioner is conducting taxable service falling under category “tour operator”. Petitioner again preferred appeal. The appellate authority again by Ext.P7 order dated 26/2/2008 remitted the matter for fresh consideration. It was observed by the appellate authority as under;

¶39

“I have carefully gone through the records of the case. This appeal is filed not on merits but on limited question of judicial discipline. My predecessor Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter with the following remark. “The lower authority is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry and collect evidence to establish whether the appellant are just owners of contract carriages, letting out vehicles on hire and are not engaged in any other service in which case, as per observations of the Hon'ble High Court there would not be any liability at all. The appellants are allowed to make any fresh submissions, in support of their contentions, before the lower authority.” Against this Order-in-Original has noted that it is not disputed that the appellants are just owners of registered contract carriages with the RTA in terms of Motor Vehicle Act and they are letting out vehicles to the persons who have booked the vehicle on hire for different fares varying according

¶40

W.P(C) No.39/11

¶41

-:4:-

¶42

to the duration of the travel/distance and are not engaged in any other services. Having come to this conclusion he has gone into an elaborate discussion on the definition of carriage as per Section 2(7) of Motor Vehicle Act and has, to my view, correctly by referring to two judgments one of Hon'ble Madras High Court and other of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court come to the conclusion that contract carriage comes under the definition of Tour Operator under Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. But, this appears to be going beyond the scope of the remand order, which again was entirely guided by a judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in T.V.Thomas v. UOI (OP No.10865/2003). Hon'ble Madras High Court's Division Bench judgment in Secretary, Federation of Bus Operators (UOI) 2001 STT 162 which very elaborately discussed the issue came to the conclusion that contract carriage operators are covered under the definition of Tour Operators. Therefore purely on technical ground of judicial discipline I allow the appeal. Department should, following tenor of the Madras High Court judgment in the Bus Operators Association's case, start fresh proceedings against the appellant.”

¶43

Again show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and Ext.P14 order had been passed. It is submitted that though an appeal is provided, there is no reason to challenge the order on

¶44

W.P(C) No.39/11

¶45

-:5:-

¶46

merits as the only question to be considered is whether petitioners come within the framework of 'tour operator' during the relevant time. Hence, this writ petition is filed inter alia contending that the order had been passed contrary to the directions issued by the two appellate authorities.

¶47

Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that the authorities were justified in directing service tax to be paid by the petitioners. It is submitted that as per Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 effective from 10/9/2004, only tour operators operating tours in a tourist vehicle were within the scope but w.e.f. 10/9/2004, the scope of service tax has been expanded to cover persons who plan the tour, schedule the tour, organize the tour or arrange the tour which may include accommodation, site seeing or other similar services. It is stated that after the amendment, effective from 10/9/2004, tour conducted by any mode of conveyance was covered under the levy. It is further stated that even for the period prior to 10/9/2004, contract carriages were covered under the levy since the definition of a tourist vehicle as per Section 2(43) of Motor

¶48

W.P(C) No.39/11

¶49

-:6:-

¶50

Vehicles Act, 1988 meant a contract carriage as well. In fact, the present definition of 'tour operator' as laid down under Section 65 (115) of the Finance Act, 1994 read as under;

¶51

“Tour operator means any person engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours (which may include arrangements for accommodation, sightseeing or other similar services) by any mode of transport, and includes any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle or a contract carriage by whatever name called, covered by a permit, other than a stage carriage permit, granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the rules made thereunder”.

¶52

Prior to 16/5/2008, and effective from 10/9/2004, the definition

¶53

reads as under;

¶54

“Tour operator means any person engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours (which may include arrangements for accommodation, sightseeing or other similar services) by any mode of transport, and includes any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle, covered by a permit, granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the rules made thereunder.”

¶55

W.P(C) No.39/11

¶56

-:7:-

¶57

Prior to 10/9/2004, the definition of tour operator read as under;

¶58

“tour operator means any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the rules made thereunder.”

¶59

It is therefore contended that during the relevant period when arrangements are made by any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules made thereunder, such persons fall under the category of tour operator and is liable to pay tax.

¶60

In Ext.P14 order, it was held that the assessee was operating the tours conducted on the vehicles owned by them. They are not mere owners of contract carriages let on hire to customers. The staff of the carriage including the driver is operating the trips and tours. The carriages are used for marriage parties, excursions and group trips. It is not a mere instance of hiring of contract carriage. Further, the vehicles are contract carriages as certified by the Transport Officer. Hence, it was found that the assessee was operating contract carriages for the

¶61

W.P(C) No.39/11

¶62

-:8:-

¶63

purpose of tour, which is liable for service tax. It is therefore evident that, on facts, there is a finding that the assessee is providing service of the tour operator. When there is such a finding of fact, it may not be possible for this Court to interfere with the said finding especially when no steps had been taken by the petitioners to prefer an appeal as contemplated under the statutory provisions.

¶64

The main contention urged by the petitioners is based on Ext.P2 judgment of this Court. Ext.P2 judgment will not render any assistance to the petitioners. It was only an observation and cannot bind the department to form an opinion that merely for the reason that the vehicles are given for hire, service tax cannot be imposed. Even otherwise, this Court held in the said judgment as under;

¶65

“Petitioners are contract carriage operators. They are challenging the show cause notices issued by the third respondent demanding service tax for services rendered in tour operation. According to the petitioners, they are not tour operators and they are only owners of contract carriages. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners have given

¶66

W.P(C) No.39/11

¶67

-:9:-

¶68

vehicles for hire to parties and they are not engaged in rendering service as tour operators. There has been change in the charging Section with effect from 10/9/2004 onwards. I feel if the petitioners are just owners of contract carriages letting vehicles on hire and are not engaged in any other service, then of course there would not be any liability at all. This is therefore a matter which requires enquiry and adjudication as to whether petitioners are engaged in rendering service as tour operators with specific reference to statutory provision prior to and after the amendment. The liability to tax with reference to statutory provisions can be determined only with reference to the specific findings on facts. In the circumstance, petitioners are directed to file a detailed reply to the adjudicating officers who are directed to conduct enquiry, collect evidence and complete the adjudication proceedings after hearing the petitioners. Three weeks' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment is granted to the petitioners to file reply and adjudication will be completed within three weeks from the date of receipt of reply. Petitioners' right to contest validity of provisions of statute on service tax is left open.”

¶69

When the petitioners were relegated to the appropriate authority and the right to contest the validity of the provisions were left open, it has to be assumed that there is no finality attached to the

¶70

W.P(C) No.39/11

¶71

-:10:-

¶72

observation made by the learned Single Judge. Therefore I do not think that the judgment in Ext.P2 had in any way curtailed the right of the assessing authority to consider on facts as to whether the petitioners are tour operators or not. Further, the authority had come to a finding that petitioners are not mere hirers. Petitioners are not persons who merely hire the vehicle, whereas it amounts to operation of the tour itself.

¶73

That apart, the following words in the statute “any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit” is liable to be termed as a tour operator. The finding by the assessing authority is that “the conditions printed on the specimen order form supplied to customers clearly show that the trips are in fact operated by the assessee and is not just a hiring of contract carriage”. It is also found that the staff of the carriage including the driver is operating the trips and tours. Further, it is seen that the appellate authority by Ext.P7 judgment had, after referring to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Secretary, Federation of Bus Operators v. Union of India [2001 STT 162], directed to follow

¶74

W.P(C) No.39/11

¶75

the tenor of Madras High Court judgment in the Bus operators Association's case (supra) and to start fresh proceedings against the appellant.

¶76

All relevant facts had been considered and the authorities had come to a proper decision which cannot be termed as illegal or perverse. I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with Ext.P14 in this writ petition.

¶77

Writ petition is, hence, dismissed.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶80

¶81

//True Copy//

¶82

P.S to Judge