2018 (8) TMI 800 - AT - Service Tax

GTA Service - freight charges towards hiring taxies for transportation of Newspapers to various places - issuance of Consignment note - Rule 4B of Service Tax Rules - Held that - In the said SCN there is no evidence provided to establish that consignment notes were issued by anybody in respect of said activity and that revenue sought to classify the said activity under GTA Service - Mere transportation of goods by motor vehicles is not service provided by GTA and that as required under Rule 4B of Service Tax Rules, if consignment note in wherever form is not issued, the activity is not covered by the definition of GTA Service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Request for adjournment by the Appellant
2. Classification of service under GTA Service
3. Requirement of consignment note for GTA Service
4. Interpretation of Rule 4B of Service Tax Rules

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal addressed the issue of the Appellant's request for adjournment, noting that no one appeared on behalf of the Appellant initially. Despite a request for adjournment, the Tribunal proceeded with the case with the assistance of the learned A.R. for the revenue. This decision highlights the importance of timely appearance and preparedness in legal proceedings.

2. The main issue in the case revolved around the classification of the service provided by the Appellant under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Service. The Revenue contended that the Appellant should pay service tax on the service provided. The Appellant argued that they hired taxies for transportation and thus were not liable to pay service tax under the GTA Service category.

3. The Tribunal examined the requirement of a consignment note for a service to be classified under GTA Service. It noted that the Appellant had consistently argued that since no consignment notes were issued for the transportation activity, it did not fall under the definition of GTA Service. This aspect was crucial in determining the tax liability of the Appellant.

4. In interpreting Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, the Tribunal referred to a previous Final Order in a similar case. The Tribunal cited the case of M/s Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, where it was held that transportation of goods by motor vehicles does not constitute a service provided by a GTA unless a consignment note is issued as per Rule 4B. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant. This decision underscores the importance of legal precedents in determining tax liabilities and interpreting relevant rules and regulations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case highlights the significance of adherence to legal requirements, such as the issuance of consignment notes for transportation services to be classified under GTA Service. The decision also emphasizes the relevance of legal precedents in resolving tax disputes and interpreting statutory provisions accurately.