9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1495 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - GTA services - transportation charges - appellant is engaged in collecting bio-medical waste from these hospitals and dumping or shredding them as the case may be for which purposes they collect charges - whether this service would be taxable under GTA service? - Held that - appellant is not providing any GTA services, but he is in the activity of disposing the bio-medical waste - on a specific query from the Bench, it was clarified that they are not issuing any consignment note of whatsoever in nature. The primary requirement for taxing under GTA services is that there should have been issuance of a consignment note by any name, in this case nothing has been brought on record to take a view that the services can be classified under GTA - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Demand of service tax on GTA services rendered by the appellant. Analysis: The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 21/2006 regarding the demand of service tax on the appellant for GTA services. The appellant collected bio-medical waste from hospitals and dumped or shredded them, charging based on the number of beds in the hospitals per day. Revenue authorities claimed the transportation charges were taxable under GTA services. However, the show cause notice and the first appellate authority's order did not specify the amount due from the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant's services could not be classified as GTA services for two main reasons. Firstly, the appellant was involved in disposing of bio-medical waste, not providing GTA services. Secondly, the appellant did not issue any consignment note, a primary requirement for taxing under GTA services. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of issuing a consignment note for a service to be classified under GTA services. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's services did not fall under GTA services, and the impugned order was unsustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant.
|
