2020 (2) TMI 1205 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - rent received for allowing the harvesting contractors to use the Appellant s bullock carts with tyres without any bullocks or driver for transporting the sugarcane to the sugar factories - period involved is 21.1.2015 to 31.3.2016 i.e. post negative list - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly the Appellants have supplied the Tyre Bullock Carts without bullocks or driver to the recipient of service i.e. farmers. The farmers have to engage their own bullocks and drivers for utilising the bullock carts. If the bullocks are of the farms and the drivers are also appointed by them then the right of possession and effective control cannot be said to be rest with the Appellants. Merely because in the agreement some route has been suggested by the Appellants which the farmers have to follow or that if during the temporary stoppage of work in the sugar factory, the employee or the labourer of the contractor/farmer are not permitted to engage in any other work or are not paid remuneration for that day, does not make them under the effective control of the Appellants. The remuneration to them, in any case, has to be paid by their contractor/farmer only and they cannot claim it from the appellants - Therefore from the facts on record it is clear that the appellant has delivered the effective possession and control of the Tyre Bullock carts to the farmers/contractors. Tyre Bullock Carts without bullocks and driver, provided by the appellant on rent for the purposes relating to agriculture/agricultural produce without having any right of possession or effective control of the Appellants over them, falls under negative list as discussed above and is not liable to Service Tax under the category of Supply of Tangible Goods Service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellants are liable to pay Service Tax on the rent received for allowing the harvesting contractors to use bullock carts with tyres without bullocks or driver for transporting sugarcane to sugar factories?

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an order demanding Service Tax on the rent received by the appellants for providing bullock carts with tyres to farmers for transporting sugarcane. The period in question was post-negative list. The department claimed a gross billed amount and issued a show cause notice demanding duty, interest, and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellants argued that they only provided bullock carts with tyres, not bullocks or drivers, and did not exercise effective control over the carts. They cited a previous order by the Commissioner (Appeals) for a similar period, which held that such services fell under the negative list and were not liable to Service Tax. The Revenue's representative contended that the appellants retained effective control over the bullock carts based on the agreement terms with the service receivers.

After considering the arguments and case laws, the Member (Judicial) found that the appellants supplied bullock carts without bullocks or drivers to farmers, who had to provide their own bullocks and drivers. The possession and control of the carts were with the farmers, not the appellants. The Member agreed with the earlier order and held that services related to agricultural produce by renting agro machinery were outside the purview of Service Tax. The Tribunal's previous decision also supported this view. Thus, the Tyre Bullock Carts provided by the appellants for agricultural purposes fell under the negative list and were not liable to Service Tax under the category of Supply of Tangible Goods Service.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, providing the appellants with consequential relief, if any.