Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jungle Lodges And Resorts Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore ... on 24 September, 2025
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/3189/2011
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2
Service Tax Appeal No. 3189 of 2011
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 158/2011 dated 28.09.2011 passed by
the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore.)
M/s. Jungle Lodges and Resorts Limited
Redg. Office 2nd Floor,
Shrungar Shopping Complex,
M. G. Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ........Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Tax,
Bangalore North. ......Respondent(s)
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Vinayaka Hegde and Mr. Dayananda. K, Chartered Accountants (CA) for the Appellant Ms. Money Jain, Authorized Representative (AR) for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. P.A. AUGUSTIAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SMT.R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Final Order No. 21533 /2025 Date of Hearing: 07.04.2025 Date of Decision: 24.09.2025 PER: P.A. AUGUSTIAN The Appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in providing wild life, eco adventure tour packages to their clients. The facilities provided by the Appellant include food and accommodation in their tourist resort which are situated in Page 1 of 9 Service Tax Appeal No. ST/3189/2011 various wild life centers all over Karnataka. In addition to the accommodation, Appellant is also arranging other services such as wild life safaris, nature ...bird watching, angling...etc. Since the activities are not taxable, registration was not obtained under service tax for the said services. However alleging that the activities are taxable services, proceedings were initiated and Adjudication authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty under various provisions of law. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed.
2. When the appeal came up for hearing, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) draws our attention to letter dated 30.04.2011 and 23.09.2011 where the Department has informed the Appellant that on introduction of the new services with effect from 01.05.2011, Appellant is liable to obtain registration under the category of short term accommodation, since they are providing short term accommodation. After issuing such communication for obtaining registration under short term accommodation, present show cause notice was issued on 14.09.2010 for the period from April, 2005 to March 2010 confirming the demand under tour operator service, renting of immovable property service and commercial trading and coaching services.
3. As regarding the demand of Rs. 4,32,50,926/- under the category of tour operator service, the Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) for the Appellant submits that it is confirmed on the ground that the Appellant helps the guest in planning, scheduling and organizing tour programme. In this regard, the Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) draws our attention to the definition of Tour operator under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) further submits that the key component of the Tour Operator service is arranging the tour by any mode of transport. The appellant does Page 2 of 9 Service Tax Appeal No. ST/3189/2011 not provide transportation services. Further submits that providing accommodation service is not a mandatory component of tour operator service. Tour Operator may provide accommodation and other sightseeing services. However, tour operator has to provide transportation services. On the contrary, in Appellant's case, the appellant is primarily providing accommodation services along with ancillary facilities but does not provide any transportation services. The services of the appellant more suitably classifiable under short term accommodation services, on which tax was imposed in the Finance Act 2011 and not under Tour Operator services. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) further submits that this is also evident from the intimation received from the Service Tax departments to couple of the appellant's resorts. Further, the appellant has appointed tour operators to promote their resorts. They are registered as Tour Operators and plan the tour which includes the Appellant's location. But the appellant themselves does not provide any tour operator services. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) also drew our attention to agreements to that effect also. Safari ride vehicles are not vehicles with tourist permit. Therefore, they do not fall within the scope of the tour operator. Learned Counsel further submits that in the case of DY. Conservator of Forest & DY. Field Director Versus C.C.E., Jaipur 2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 355 (Tri. - Del.), it is held that safari is not a tour. The appellant's service more suitably classifiable under short term accommodation services under clause 65 (105)(zzzzw). The appellant has paid service tax under this category from 01.05.2011. For the subsequent period, the service tax department also has accepted the classification of the appellant and not raised any dispute. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) also drew our attention to ST-3 returns for the relevant period. Learned Counsel further submits that the appellant does not carry out any planning, scheduling or Page 3 of 9 Service Tax Appeal No. ST/3189/2011 arranging tours. The customers themselves come up with the plan and schedule. Even the transportation to the resort is also taken by the customer only. Appellant operates hotels. Both impugned order and SCN have not show caused the manner of planning, scheduling and arranging the tours. Merely offering various facilities in multiple locations does not lead to a conclusion that the service provided falls within the scope of tour operator services. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of CC Vs. M/s Kerala Backwaters Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and also in the matter of M/s Air India vs CC, Delhi (2017 (5) GSTL 172 (Tri.Del) where it is held that:-
"6. On perusal of the package features mentioned in the above Circular, it transpires that the appellant is not providing any consultancy in the nature of planning, scheduling, organizing and arranging tours on behalf of a particular tour for the passengers. Thus, the activities provided by the appellant will fall outside the scope and ambit of 'Tour Operator Service'. We find that this Tribunal in the case of Jet Airways India Ltd. (supra) has held that various tour packages provided by the airlines to the passengers (similar to the package offered by the appellant) shall not be covered under the purview of Tour Operator Service. The relevant paragraphs in the said decision are extracted herein below:
"6.1 It can be seen from the above reproduced definition that the said definition would cover a person who is engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours and who is engaged in the business of operating tours in tourist vehicle or a contract carriage. As already produced herein above, appellant is operating "airlines" which undertakes transportation of passengers by air. In order to enhance their business of selling airline tickets, appellant had offered "Jet Escapes"
Packages to their passengers for a specified destination. On perusal of "Jet Escapes Package" details as downloaded from website, we find that the said advertisement specifically states that "Return air travel in Economy class, inclusive of taxes, Airport transfers, Hotel accommodation Page 4 of 9 Service Tax Appeal No. ST/3189/2011 with breakfast, sightseeing as applicable" but does not indicate that they would plan, schedule or organize the tours for the passengers. Further the definition also mandates for the services to be rendered by persons engaged in business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle or a contract carriage. It is on record that the passengers when they want to opt for "Jet Escapes Package", organize own travel dates and appellant is not helping them in planning or organizing or scheduling of tours. We find that though not on the very same issue, this Bench in the case of Divisional Controller (supra) was considering the services rendered by the appellant therein as to whether this service would fall under the category of "Tour Operator Services" The appellant in that case was providing contract carriage and stage carriage to various individuals/customers and it was considered as the said service would fall under the category of Tour Operator Service".
4. As regarding the other demand, the Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) draws our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of DY. Conservator of Forest & DY. Field Director Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2019 (20) GSTL 355 (Tri. - Del) and M/s. GEM Star Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Calicut (2007 (7) STR 342 (Tri. - Bang) and the Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17.09.2004 where it is clarified that tour operator's entry is applicable only in those cases where the tour includes transportation from one place to another and subsequently, carrying out various activities, which may include accommodation, safari, sightseeing, etc. In the present case, the appellant does not provide any transportation for the customers to come to their resort or camp. It is the responsibility of the customer to plan and schedule his transportation and arrive at the resort for which he has made the booking. Once the customers come and check in the resort/camp, they are at the liberty to use the facilities provided by the respective resort.
Page 5 of 9Service Tax Appeal No. ST/3189/2011 The appellant further submits that they take the booking only for the resorts operated by them and do not provide any booking or tour planning services for the resorts operated by third parties. In other words, providing information about the facilities available in their own resort and taking the booking does not lead to planning, scheduling, or arranging of the tour. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) relied on the following decisions:-
i. Usha Breco Limited Vs. CCE - 2007 (8) STT (191) (Tri. Delhi) ii. CCE Vs. Patel Tours and Travels 2010 (20) STR 698 (Tri. Ahm) iii. CCE Vs. Bharat Travels - 2010 (20) STR 526 (Tri.
Ahm) iv. CCE Vs. Ramsons Travels & Tours - 2009 (14) STR (372) v. C.C.E., CUS. & S.T., COCHIN Vs. Kerala Backwaters Private Limited 2019 (22) GSTL 93 (Tri. - Bang.) vi. Air India Vs. CCE, Delhi 2017 (5) G.S.T.L 172 (Tri.
Del.)
5. Learned Chartered Accountant (CA)further submits that without prejudice to the foregoing, the appellant charges only for accommodation at the tariff rate, which is inclusive of all package charges. The appellant is also paying luxury tax on the accommodation services provided. It is also evident that the nature of the service is accommodation service and not tour operator services. Also drew our attention to copies of the invoices for reference. The appellant does not represent themselves as tour operator and the common understanding of the customers is also not as tour operator. The appellant charges the customer based on the number of days of occupancy of the room/cottage at the declared tariff.
Page 6 of 9Service Tax Appeal No. ST/3189/2011
6. As regarding demand of Rs. 70,87,379/- under the category of renting of immovable property, Learned Counsel submits that said demand is against income accounted under the head Ayurvedic receipts, beach resort receipts...etc on the ground that said services fall within the scope of renting of immovable property services. In this regard, the Learned Counsel submits that the renting of immovable property services definition excluding building used for hotels, building used solely for residential purposes and building used for the purpose of accommodation including hotels, hostels, boarding houses, holidays accommodation, tents, camping facilities. Therefore the rents received from hotels are not liable for service tax. Thus, Net income of Rs. 6,14,03,398/- against income from rental hotels are not taxable. Further as regarding income from franchise fee of Rs. 1,40,88,280/-, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that franchise fee does not fall within the renting of immovable property classification. As regarding income from Ayurvedic treatment amounting to Rs. 52,23,571/-, the Learned Counsel submits that the Ayurvedic receipt does not represent income from renting, it is a share of Revenue earned from operating Ayurvedic treatment facility. Learned Counsel draw our attention to the agreement dated 01st January, 2010 between the Appellant and the Kottakkal Arya Vaidyasala, and submits that that the sharing ratio between the Appellant and the second party will be 40% and 60% of the gross profit.
7. As regarding demand of Rs. 8,36,566/- under the category of commercial training and coaching service, Learned Counsel draw our attention to the definition of the commercial coaching services which means any training or coaching provided by a commercial training or coaching center. Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the agreement entered by the Appellant with Department of Environment and Forest, Andaman Nicobar Page 7 of 9 Service Tax Appeal No. ST/3189/2011 Administration on 16th November, 2009. Objective of the agreement is to develop organizational sector for eco-tourism in Andaman and Nicobar and exploring eco-tourism potential. The Learned Counsel submits that the activities are carried out as per the communication issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forest and draw our attention to the letter dated 08.12.2010 where it is clarified that the officers nominated by the Ministry of Environment & Forest for advert going one week compulsory training on eco-tourism on habitual management to be organized by the institute organization. Further submits that none of the activities are falling under the category of commercial coaching to confirm demand.
8. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned order.
9. Heard both sides. On perusal of the documents and considering the submissions, the activities undertaken by the Appellant is not falling under the category of tour operators and it is squarely covered by the decisions in the matter of M/s Kerala Backwaters (supra). As regarding renting of immovable property also, we find that renting of immovable property services definition exclude building used for hotels, building used solely for residential purposes and building used for the purpose of accommodation including hotels, hostels, boarding houses, holidays accommodation, tents, camping facilities. Therefore the rents received from hotels are not liable for service tax. As regarding the demand against commercial training, we find that the definition of the commercial coaching services means any training or coaching provided by a commercial training or coaching center. Considering the agreement dated 16th November, 2009 entered by the Appellant with Department of Environment and Forest, Andaman Nicobar Page 8 of 9 Service Tax Appeal No. ST/3189/2011 Administration the said activity is falling under the category of commercial coaching to confirm demand.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is partially allowed by setting aside the demand under the category of tour operator and renting of immovable property Services. However, the demand under the category of Commercial Coaching Service is upheld. The impugned order confirming the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation and penalty imposed by the adjudication authority are set aside with consequential relief if any in accordance with law.
(Order was pronounced in Open Court on 24.09.2025) (P.A. AUGUSTIAN) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R. BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) hr/Sasi Page 9 of 9