9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 959 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - GTA Service or not - transporters have not issued any consignment note to the effect of providing all the transportation service to their clients - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT - The appellant is not issuing any consignment note for providing all the transport service and only raising bills for the transportation charges for various trucks hired by them from the independent owners and use them for providing the services to their clients. Hence, they would not be covered under the GTA service. From perusal of the above definition regarding GTA as contained in the Act, it is apparent that the issue of consignment note, by whatever name is pre-requisite for the transaction to be covered under Goods Transport Agency - In the present case service provider has not issued the consignment note to the appellant and hence the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism and also do not fall under the category of GTA as under Section 65 (5b) of the Finance Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Upholding of demand confirmed by the Original adjudicating authority 2. Applicability of service tax under Goods Transport Agency Services 3. Scope of show cause notice and demand confirmation 4. Liability under reverse charge mechanism 5. Interpretation of consignment note requirement for Goods Transport Agency Services 6. Applicability of extended period for demand confirmation 7. Imposition of interest and penalty Analysis: 1. The appellant challenged the impugned order-in-Appeal upholding the demand confirmed by the Original adjudicating authority. The financial records showed payments made to transporters for goods transportation, triggering a demand for service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that they were discharging service tax for other services, and the demand under Goods Transport Agency Services was beyond the scope of the show cause notice. 2. The appellant argued that the truck owners providing services did not fall under Goods Transport Agency Services, thus no service tax was leviable under the reverse charge mechanism. Citing relevant notifications and circulars, the appellant claimed that the demand was based on amended provisions not applicable during the disputed period of 2008-09. 3. The appellant highlighted that the impugned orders confirmed demands not part of the show cause notices, exceeding the scope thereof. The appellant, as a service provider, had paid service tax but disputed the demand as a service recipient under the GTA service. Legal precedents were cited to support the argument against the demand confirmation. 4. The Department sought to tax the transportation charges under Goods Transport Agency Services, emphasizing the absence of consignment notes from the transporters. The appellant's explanation clarified the nature of services provided, indicating that the absence of consignment notes exempted them from the GTA service tax liability. 5. The definition of Goods Transport Agency was crucial in determining the tax liability, requiring the issuance of consignment notes for services to be covered under GTA. Since the appellant did not issue consignment notes for all transport services, they were not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism or fall under the GTA category. 6. Considering the absence of consignment notes and the appellant's compliance with tax obligations, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment emphasized the importance of consignment notes in determining tax liability under Goods Transport Agency Services. 7. The ruling clarified the interpretation of consignment notes and their significance in determining tax liability under the GTA service, providing a favorable outcome for the appellant based on the absence of consignment notes in their transactions.
|
