##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 510 of 2025 ==========================================================

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, BHAVNAGAR Versus OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. PARTH MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS. SHRUNJAL SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 06/08/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1 Heard learned advocate Mr.Parth Mehta appearing for learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Ankit Shah for the appellant and Ms.Shrunjal Shah learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

2 The present tax appeal emanates from Final Order No. 12202 to 12204 of 2004 dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the CESTAT’), Regional Bench, Ahmedabad, in Service Tax Appeal No. 11955 of 2018 and allied matters.

3 The appellant – Revenue had preferred Tax Appeal No. 505 of 2025 and 506 of 2025 against Final Order No. A/12204/2024 dated 26.09.2024, which was dismissed by Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court by observing as under:

“2 It is interesting to note that the appeals are preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods & Services Tax, Bhavnagar against the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gir Forest, Sinh Sadan, Sasan, Junagadh Thus, the Commissioner of Central Excise authority is aggrieved by the action of the respondent- Deputy Conservator of Forests, who is the person in charge of wild life division in the district of Junagadh working under the Ministry of Forests and Environment, State of Gujarat.

3 We fail to understand that how an officer of the State Government - Deputy Conservator of Forests is roped in the proceedings who would not fall under the definition of "Tour Operator" or under Section 65(105) (zzzzw) and 65(105)(n) as per the Finance Act, 1994 (for short the Act, 1994'), substituted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 16.05.2008. The appellant has encompassed the government officer ie Deputy Conservator of Forest within the definition of "Tour Operator" by contending that the he would be the person who satisfies the ingredients of the definition since he is engaged in the business of tour operating and is also planning, rescheduling or arranging the tours by any mode of transport.

4 It is not in dispute that the State Government is the authority which protects the conservation of the forests within its geographical territory and the fees collected by the respondent in its official capacity on behalf of Government of Gujarat and in discharge of his sovereign function is credited directly to the consolidated funds of State of Gujarat. It appears that a Show- Cause Notice for the Financial Year from 2009-10 to June-2017 demanding Service Tax was issued by the appellant on 10.10.2014, 14.03.2016 and 22.03.2018, which was adjudicated upon by the order-in-original dated 06.11.2015, 28.02.2017 and 03.05.2019, confirming the demand of Service Tax along with the interest under Section 75 of the Act, 1994 and thereafter imposed a penalty under Section 77(1)(a) of the Act, 1994.

5. By the Order-in-Original dated 03.05.2019, the Commissioner of Excise and Central Goods & Services Tax held that the respondent- Deputy Conservator of Forest would fall within the category of "Tour Operator" in terms of Section 65(n)(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was further held that the respondent had charged from the visitors such as Entry Fees, Camera Fees and other charges for visiting the forest at Sasan Gır. Hence, it is held that respondent is engaged in the business of planning, scheduling or organizing and arrangement of tours by vehicles