No service tax on transportation of articles which are not goods as per Sales of Goods Act

[CA Bimal Jain]

The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in PANOLI ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ST, SURAT-II - 2023 (8) TMI 122 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD  held that the effluent does not qualify to be a ‘good’ as per the Sales of Goods Act, 1930 ("the Sales of Goods Act”) and as per definition of Goods Transport Agency (“GTA”) only the transportation of ‘goods’ is covered under GTA service. Thus, transportation of effluent by GTA is out from the ambit of service tax.

Facts:

M/s Panoli Enviro Technology Limited (“the Appellant”) raised the query regarding the applicability of service tax on GTA in relation to the transportation of effluent (‘liquid sewage waste’) generated during the effluent treatment process carried out by the Appellant.

The Appellant submitted that the transportation of effluent is not for sale, moreover the effluent is not in the saleable condition therefore, the transportation of effluent not liable to service tax because the definition of GTA which states that ‘any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called.’

Since, the definition only covers transportation of goods and the effluent is not good thus, the transportation of effluent will not attract service tax.

The Appellant relied upon the judgement of M/S GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS CCE VADODARA - 2014 (7) TMI 893 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD wherein it was held that the effluent discharge is not purchased by any person and is only being disposed by utilizing the services of GTA. As the relevant facilities/services of transportation provided by Appellant are not the ‘goods’ the same cannot be considered as a service provided for transportation of goods.

Issue:

Whether the GTA is liable to receive service tax on transportation of effluent which is not goods as per the definition under the Sales of Goods Act?

Held:

The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in PANOLI ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ST, SURAT-II - 2023 (8) TMI 122 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD  held as under:

• Noted that, the definition of ‘goods’ in service tax is the same as assigned in the Sales of Goods Act, which states that the goods has to be in a category of ‘movable property’ and the movable property in general trade parlance is considered as a property in goods which can fetch certain price.
• Relied upon the judgement in the case of M/S. ODYSSEY ORGANICS P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD - 2016 (11) TMI 584 - CESTAT MUMBAIwherein it was held that treatment of effluent waste cannot be considered as processing of the goods by any stretch of imagination.
• Held that, the effluent which is neither sold nor is in saleable condition does not qualify to be a ‘goods’. Therefore, transportation of the same does not fall under the corners of GTA, hence the same is not liable to service tax.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])