Raja Abhishek For NIRC 2024

@abhishekrajaram

over 1 year ago

•View on š•

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—”š—²š˜„ š——š—²š—¹š—µš—¶ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—”š—Æš—®š˜š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜ š—®š—»š—± š—§š—®š˜… š—–š—¼š—¹š—¹š—²š—°š˜š—¶š—¼š—» š—Æš˜† š—§š—¼š˜‚š—æ š—¢š—½š—²š—æš—®š˜š—¼š—æ šŸ“¢ The Tribunal held: "Taxes collected by the appellant from customers were remitted to the hotel, and thus, no service tax is payable by the appellant."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: M/s Make My Trip (India) Private Limited š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the appellant qualifies for 90% abatement as a tour operator and whether it provides short-term accommodation services?

š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant discharged service tax on the total amount received from customers under "tour operator services," claiming a 90% abatement. A show-cause notice was issued, alleging incorrect classification of services and non-eligibility for abatement.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal noted: The appellant acted merely as a facilitator, not as a hotel agent. It qualified as a tour operator and was entitled to the 90% abatement. Taxes collected were remitted to the hotel, and the appellant discharged service tax on the amount collected from customers. The appeal was allowed, and the service tax demands were set aside.

š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s Make My Trip (India) Private Limited vs. Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence š—¦š—˜š—„š—©š—œš—–š—˜ š—§š—”š—« š—”š—£š—£š—˜š—”š—Ÿ š—”š—¢. 51844 OF 2021 š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 10 January 2024

šŸ“œ This ruling confirms that the appellant, as a tour operator, is entitled to abatement, and taxes collected and remitted to the hotel do not attract additional service tax liability.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on š•

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own