SURESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant is a tourist operator recognised by the Government of India and is operating in South India. The Union Government imposed service tax on the tour operators. Pursuant to that, notice was issued to the Appellant to register under Section 69 of the Finance act, 1994 for the purpose of levying service tax. The Appellant and other operators filed writ petitions inter-alia to quash the notice. The learned Single Judge by order dated 22-9-2006 dismissed the writ petitions. The Appellant alone has filed this writ appeal challenging the said order on various grounds.

(2.) WE have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of the Learned Single Judge. Prima facie we find that the same does not warrant interference. The Learned Single judge has considered all relevant provisions of Finance Act, the contentions urged, decisions relied upon and assigned valid and cogent reasons in support of his conclusions. The law on the point is correctly applied. The applicable provisions are properly interpreted and a right decision is rendered.

(3.) THE definition of "taxable Service" is clear. It means any service provided to any person by a tour operator in relation to a tour. As per Section 65 (76) of the Act, "tour" means journey from place to place. The services rendered by a tourist operator are, carrying the tourists to tourist spots for sight seeing, purchasing entry or admission tickets, explaining the importance of the places, the speciality or sanctity etc. , through guides, providing boarding and lodging facilities at convenient places and rendering such other services. For that purpose, a tourist operator collects amount from the tourists. Whatever service tax levied on the tourist operator will be collected from the tourists and the operator does not pay from his pocket. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant that he is not rendering such services and therefore he is not liable to pay the service tax, is wholly untenable. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the contention and we cannot find fault with the same.