2018 (1) TMI 964 - AT - Service Tax

GTA Service - It appeared to Revenue that activity of transport of foodgrains, sugar etc., comes under the purview of taxable service namely Goods Transport Service as defined under Section 65 (50b) of the Finance Act, 1994 and taxable under Section 65 (105) (zzp) - Held that - there is neither any allegation nor any finding that the appellants were issued a consignment note - in the facts of the present case, both the consignor and the consignee are same. Thus, there is no requirement also of issuance of any consignment note. Under such circumstances, the appellants are not liable to pay service tax as GTA, as defined under Section 65 (50b) read with Section 65 (105)(zzp) of the Finance Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extended period of limitation invocable for service tax contravention.
2. Allegations in show cause notice regarding transportation work.
3. Requirement of consignment note for Goods Transport Agency (GTA) definition.
4. Appeal against dismissal by learned Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appellants were issued show cause notices invoking the extended period of limitation for alleged contravention of service tax provisions. The notices also mentioned potential liability for penalties under Sections 77, 76, and 78 of the Act. The adjudication was done ex-parte, leading to appeals being filed by the appellants before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed them as time-barred.

2. The appellants argued that the show cause notices were not maintainable as they lacked specific allegations regarding the issuance of consignment notes, a crucial requirement for attracting the definition of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) under the relevant sections of the Finance Act. They contended that the notices did not accuse them of any concealment or evasion of tax, making them invalid. The appellants sought relief on these grounds.

3. The Revenue, represented by the learned A.R., stood by the impugned orders. However, upon examining the contentions from both sides, the Tribunal found that there was no mention or evidence of the appellants issuing consignment notes. Additionally, since both the consignor and consignee were the same entity (FCI), the necessity of a consignment note was deemed unnecessary in this context. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the appellants were not liable to pay service tax as a GTA under the relevant sections of the Finance Act.

4. In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders. The appellants were granted consequential benefits as per the law. The judgment was pronounced in court on 29/11/2017 by the Tribunal, comprising Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial), and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical).