2018 (2) TMI 938 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of service - GTA Service - respondent is engaged in carrying the sugarcane from the collection point to its factory by individual truck operators - whether classified under GTA Service or otherwise? - Held that - an identical issue has came up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ashoka Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur I 2017 (9) TMI 711 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that the service of transportation of sugarcane provided by the transporters would not be covered by Section 65(105)(zzp), and hence there will be no Service Tax liability on the appellant sugarcane mills, as they have not received the service from a Goods Transport Agency - demand set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of service tax under GTA service on transportation of goods by individual truck operators without the use of a goods transport agency.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the order-in-Appeal where the levy of service tax under GTA service was dropped on the transportation of sugarcane from the collection point to the factory by individual truck operators without the use of a goods transport agency. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed the appeal. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a similar issue and held that the transportation of goods by individual truck owners without the issuance of consignment notes or other required documents as per Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules does not fall under the definition of service provided by a Goods Transport Agency. The Tribunal emphasized that a Goods Transport Agency provides services under a consignment note containing specific particulars, which were not issued in the present case. Therefore, the service of transportation of sugarcane provided by the individual truck operators did not attract service tax liability under Section 65(105)(zzp) as they were not considered Goods Transport Agencies.

The Tribunal relied on a previous decision and reiterated that the transportation of goods without the issuance of consignment notes or other necessary documents does not constitute the service of a Goods Transport Agency. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of consignment notes means that the service provided was merely transportation and not that of a Goods Transport Agency, which involves additional responsibilities like delivering goods to the consignee and temporary storage. As the individual truck operators did not issue consignment notes or other required documents as per Rule 4B, they could not be classified as Goods Transport Agencies. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld that there was no service tax liability on the appellant sugarcane mills as they did not receive services from a Goods Transport Agency, leading to the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, by following its earlier decision and the principles laid down in previous cases, upheld that the transportation of goods by individual truck operators without the issuance of consignment notes or other necessary documents did not attract service tax liability under the GTA service. The impugned order dropping the service tax levy was upheld, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.