Carrying On Business Of Supplying Taxi Travel †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Carrying On Business Of Supplying Taxi Travel. Answer: Case Facts: The Australian Taxation Office declared in 2015 that Uber Drivers need to be registered and pay Goods and Service Tax irrespective of their turnover. The general rule that was followed earlier regarding registration was that an enterprise with turnover less than 75 thousand dollars would not be required to pay Goods and Service Tax. However it is to be mentioned that an exception to the generally followed rule is that an enterprise carrying on business of supplying taxi travel is required to be registered for Goods and Service Tax irrespective of its turnover according to section 144-5(1) of the Goods and Service Act . It can be mentioned that according to section 195(1) of the GST Act Taxi Travel can be defined as travel involving passengers in taxi or limousine for fares. The Australian Taxation Office stated that Uber fell within the abovementioned exception as it is a company dealing in Taxi Travel and thus is required to pay GST irrespective of its turnover. However it is to be mentioned that Uber disagreed the fact that UberX drivers did not provide taxi service and filed a declaration to the Federal Court of Australia stating the same. Applicants submission: The applicant stated that Taxi travel only applied to the Taxi Industry as the legal provisions as stated in the Goods and Service Act did not apply on any other industry. The applicant suggested that the words Taxi and limousine bear a non legal meaning. The terms Taxi and Limousine as stated in section 195(1) of the GST Act provided a general meaning and have no legal implications of those meanings. The Applicants argued that Uber vehicles do not have markings on the body of the vehicles therefore cannot be categorized under taxi travel. The applicant also added that payment systems of Uber are different from normal taxis. The Uber drivers are not required to display the fares on meters as normal taxis. Respondents submission: The respondent stated that Taxi Travel should be construed as a whole and should be defined as transportation by a vehicle being driven a person for fares. The respondent also stated that the services provided by Uber fall under the category of taxi travel as all the essential features of transport by taxi travel are fulfilled by Uber. Further explanation of the definition of limousine was provided by the commissioner. He stated that unlike taxis Limousines do not have meters to display the fares and are required to be pre booked. Thus any car dealing providing transportation for fares should not be exempted from Taxi travel. Decision: Justice Griffiths held that the Respondent was rightful in submitting that Taxi is a vehicle which is available for hire by the Public for fares and taxis do not always require fare meters. However Justice Griffiths held that the Commissioner was not rightful in stating that limousines are not confined by the definitions of luxurious cars. Justice Griffiths held that limousines are luxury vehicles, which are hired by people for fares and cannot be compared to Taxis. However the Judgment held that Uber drivers needed to register for GST and register an Australian Business Number. It was held that Uber drivers were required to lodge Business Statements. References: UBER B.V. v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 110