2021 (7) TMI 931 - AT - Service Tax

GTA Services - service of transport operator or owner and not of any transport agency for inward transportation of raw material to their factory - adjudicating authority took the ground that there was no existence of goods transport agency - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT - There is no such provision in the scheme of Acts and Rules permitting assumption of facts to be made by the Adjudicating Authority, without reference to the facts on record. In this view of the matter, the basic fact and /or the requisite for charging service tax under GTA service i.e. service being provided by goods transport agency as defined, nor existence of consignment note being there, the demand has been raised improperly as well as whimsically. The penalties imposed are also set aside - the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal for restoration due to non-appearance, Demand raised on reverse charge basis for GTA services, Existence of 'goods transport agency' for service tax under GTA service.

Issue 1: Appeal Restoration
The appellant filed a restoration application after the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance, citing the Counsel's absence due to ill health. The application requested restoration in the interest of justice, emphasizing no deliberate intention for non-appearance. The appeal was restored for final hearing, considering the small point of law involved.

Issue 2: Demand for GTA Services
The demand of ?67,041 was raised on a reverse charge basis for GTA services availed by the appellant, a manufacturer of stone, slab, and marble. The appellant argued that they availed the service of transport operator/owner, not a transport agency, for inward transportation of raw material. They contended that services by individual truck operators did not fall under the GTA service category as defined in Section 65(105).

Issue 3: Existence of 'Goods Transport Agency'
The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, noting the necessity of proper transportation documents for goods transportation. They rejected the appellant's plea, emphasizing the requirement for goods to be accompanied by transportation documents. However, the appellate tribunal found that the demand was raised improperly and whimsically. They highlighted the absence of facts supporting the charge under GTA service, such as the service being provided by a 'goods transport agency' as defined, and the lack of a consignment note. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and penalties imposed were also revoked.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential benefits in accordance with the law. The tribunal emphasized the importance of factual evidence and adherence to legal provisions in determining service tax liabilities, ultimately leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.