2016 (8) TMI 1055 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Goods Transport Agency Service - trucks were driven by drivers of the appellant - Held that - in the light of the judgments of Hon ble High Court of Madras in CCE, Salem Vs Suibramia Siva Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 2014 (11) TMI 925 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that the use of the word any person in the definition of Goods Transport Agency includes individual truck owners also and the judgment of Tribunal in the case of Sree Balaji Transport Vs CCE & ST, Tirupathi 2015 (10) TMI 53 - CESTAT BANGALORE where Tribunal observed that under Section 60(506), Goods Transport Agency means any person who prides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called. The language of the section is unambiguous and that any person (including individuals) who provides service in relation to transport by road is liable to service tax. The appellant does not succeed on merits. Period of limitation - freight charges - duty having been paid on FOR basis - no suppression with intention to evade payment of service tax - Held that - it is the case of the appellant that the freight charges were shown in the invoices and that these invoices were signed by the jurisdictional officer. As per the agreement the appellant has agreed to bear the transportation charges. The appellant is registered for Goods Transport Agency Services. In the invoices, the appellant has shown the freight charges separately. But the appellant failed to discharge the service tax liability on the freight charges collected. In such score, the invocation of extended period of limitation is legal and proper. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Demand of service tax on freight charges
- Classification of private trucks as Goods Transport Agency
- Time limitation for show cause notice

Analysis:
1. Demand of service tax on freight charges:
- The appellant contested the demand of service tax on freight charges related to the supply of electrical transformers. The department observed that the assessable value in the invoices did not include freight charges, leading to the suppression of the value of freight. A show cause notice was issued, confirming the demand of service tax and imposing penalties. The appellant argued that duty was paid on FOR basis and thus they were not liable for service tax on freight charges. However, the department maintained that the appellant suppressed the freight value. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the current appeal.

2. Classification of private trucks as Goods Transport Agency:
- The appellant claimed that the trucks used were private and driven by their own drivers, not falling under the definition of Goods Transport Agency. They cited a previous judgment in support of their argument. However, the department contended that individual truck owners also fall under the definition of Goods Transport Agency, as per relevant judgments. The Tribunal agreed with the department's interpretation, stating that any person providing transport services by road, including individuals, is liable for service tax.

3. Time limitation for show cause notice:
- The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued was time-barred, as there was no intention to suppress facts regarding freight charges. They claimed that the invoices clearly showed the freight charges, were signed by the jurisdictional officer, and declared in the tax returns. However, the department justified the extended period of limitation due to the appellant's failure to discharge the service tax liability on the collected freight charges, despite showing them separately in the invoices.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the demand for service tax on freight charges, classifying private trucks under Goods Transport Agency, and justifying the extended period for the show cause notice based on the appellant's failure to pay the service tax liability.