2019 (7) TMI 209 - AT - Service Tax

Recovery of Service Tax - Business Auxiliary Service - GTA Services - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT - A perusal of the show-cause notice shows that it is the allegation in the show-cause notice that the assessee received goods transport services as a consignee/consignor towards transportation of goods by road by different goods transport agencies and hence the demand. This demand was made based on the annual reports for the year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 and statement dated 18.02.2009, ledger copies and debit notes in respect of export commissions and goods transports as well as based on assessment letters along with consignment notes. Appellant now pleads in the grounds of appeal that they have not availed the services of any goods transport agency at all. However, this assertion is not substantiated by any evidence whatsoever in the appeal book. There is no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service tax demand on goods transport agency
2. Levy of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994
3. Levy of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994

Service Tax Demand on Goods Transport Agency:
The case involved an appeal against a demand of service tax on goods transport agency services. The appellant argued that they did not avail the services of independent goods transport agencies but used railway cargo handling agencies, which were debited in the profit and loss account. However, the show-cause notice alleged that the appellant received goods transport services from different agencies based on various documents. The appellant failed to provide evidence to support their claim. The tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the demand, interest, and penalties imposed by the original authority.

Levy of Interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The appellant contested the levy of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. Despite the appellant's arguments, the tribunal did not find any grounds to set aside the interest imposed. The tribunal upheld the decision of the original authority regarding the imposition of interest along with the demand.

Levy of Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The appellant challenged the imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the tribunal upheld the penalties as proposed by the original authority. The tribunal found no error in the decision to impose penalties and rejected the appellant's appeal on this issue as well.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the original authority's decision regarding the service tax demand on goods transport agency services, the levy of interest under Section 75, and the imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's arguments were not substantiated with evidence, leading to the rejection of the appeal and the affirmation of the impugned order.