2011 (3) TMI 147 - AT - Service Tax

Tax demand arises for the reason that the assessees had not been able to produce any declaration from the Goods Transport Agents that they had either availed the credit on inputs or capital goods used for providing the taxable service or availed exemption on the cost of goods and materials sold to the recipient of service in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.03 and the assessees were not able to produce the consignment notes showing the above said declaration in terms of Notification No.12/03-ST dated 20.06.03 - the abatement of 75% from the gross freight value under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 as amended is not available in the absence of such declaration/consignment note containing transaction particulars - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Confirmation of service tax payable on GTA services
2. Imposition of interest, penalty, and demands
3. Non-production of necessary declarations and consignment notes
4. Availability of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST
5. Consideration of plea on limitation

Analysis:

1. Confirmation of service tax payable on GTA services:
The judgment confirms demands of service tax on GTA services for specific periods, along with interest, penalty, and additional demands for education cess. The tax demand was primarily due to the failure of the assessees to provide declarations from Goods Transport Agents regarding availing credit on inputs or capital goods, or exemption on goods sold to the recipient of service. The absence of such declarations led to the imposition of tax liabilities on the assessees.

2. Imposition of interest, penalty, and demands:
In addition to the service tax demands, interest, penalty under Sections 76, 77, and 78 were imposed on the assessees. The penalty was a consequence of the non-compliance with the necessary documentation requirements and failure to produce consignment notes as per the relevant notifications. The Tribunal upheld the imposition of these charges based on the findings of the Commissioner.

3. Non-production of necessary declarations and consignment notes:
The failure to produce declarations from Goods Transport Agents and consignment notes as required by the relevant notifications played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision. The absence of these documents hindered the assessees' ability to claim abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST, leading to the confirmation of tax demands by the Commissioner.

4. Availability of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST:
The judgment highlighted that the abatement of 75% from the gross freight value under Notification No. 32/2004-ST was not available to the assessees due to the lack of declaration/consignment notes containing transaction particulars. This non-compliance with documentation requirements resulted in the denial of the abatement benefit, reinforcing the tax liabilities on the transporters.

5. Consideration of plea on limitation:
The Tribunal addressed the plea on limitation raised by the assessees, emphasizing that the earlier remand order did not include any specific direction to reconsider the issue of time bar. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders and rejected the appeals, indicating that the plea on limitation could not be considered in this context.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the key issues addressed by the Tribunal regarding the confirmation of service tax liabilities, imposition of penalties, non-compliance with documentation requirements, availability of abatement benefits, and consideration of pleas on limitation.