2010 (6) TMI 216 - AT - Service Tax

Stay- Goods Transport Agency Service Revenue is holding that the appellant had availed services of Goods Transport Agency . Assessee contended that he has not availed services of Goods Transport Agency , but availed service of goods transport operator and truck owner . Held that- Amount of Rs. 1.65 crore already deposited out of demand of Rs. 1.95 crore. Thus the amount already deposited sufficient toeards pre-deposit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties.
2. Interpretation of service tax liability for services of 'Goods Transport Agency' versus 'goods transport operator' and 'truck owner'.
3. Consideration of the amount already deposited by the appellant in relation to total tax liability.
4. Legal precedent regarding service tax liability on goods transport operator and truck owner.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with two stay petitions seeking waiver of pre-deposit of significant amounts related to service tax and penalties. The appellant argued that they did not avail services of a 'Goods Transport Agency' but of a 'goods transport operator' and 'truck owner', resulting in a service tax liability of approximately Rs. 1.99 crores. During adjudication proceedings, the appellant had already deposited Rs. 1.65 crores. The Tribunal examined the submissions and records, noting that the appellant had deposited 85% of the total tax liability. Additionally, legal decisions favored the assessee regarding service tax liability on goods transport operators and truck owners. The Tribunal considered the deposited amount sufficient for the appeals' disposal, allowing the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining balance and staying recovery until the appeals' final disposal.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between services of a 'Goods Transport Agency' and those of a 'goods transport operator' and 'truck owner' in determining service tax liability. It emphasized the significance of the amount already deposited by the appellant, taking into account legal precedents supporting the appellant's position on service tax liability. The decision ultimately granted the waiver of pre-deposit for the balance amounts and stayed recovery pending the final disposal of the appeals, providing relief to the appellant in this case.