2020 (3) TMI 846 - AT - Service Tax

GTA service - service of transportation of goods by road - demand of differential tax arising from the benefit of notification no. 35/2004-ST dated 3rd December 2004 available to providers of transport of goods by road service - HELD THAT - The first of the two impugned orders is not convincing in the refutation of the claim of the assessees that carriage of goods or articles from door to door suffices to exclude the ambit of transportation of goods by road service from such activity. Neither does the ground of appeal against the second of the impugned orders nor has Learned Authorised Representative much to add in support of this premise. Though there is overwhelming emphasis on door-to-door in the circulars relied upon by that authority, this does not, in our opinion, constitute the sole defining distinction between the two rival entries. Doubtlessly, time sensitive is of critical relevance; however, neither of the two show cause notices advert to any special treatment accorded to one or more of the several consignments sought to be covered within the taxability as courier agency service ; indeed, it would appear that, in the absence of any evidence other than the statements relied upon in the two show cause notices, the determination in the first adjudication order is founded upon assumptions and presumptions. In addition to time sensitivity , there is another factor, that is no less critical, distinguishing the two taxable services the inalienable presence of a person accompanying the document, goods or articles. Both the impugned orders are in consensus that there is no person in evidence other than the obvious driver of the goods carriage and, while the later does not consider that to suffice for conformity with the definition, the former deems that to be sufficient. There is an inherent flaw in this logic the rendering of transportation of goods by road service cannot be bereft of the presence of the driver and would, in circumstances of door-to-door delivery, transform such activity to that of courier agency service even in the ostensible absence of time sensitivity - the distinction between the two taxable entries cannot be left to such vaguely founded conclusions as revealing of legislative intent. This is apparent in the contradictory viewpoints in near identical proceedings emerging from the two adjudication proceedings. The assessee-appellant has acknowledged one of the computations of tax recovered but not deposited. The adjudicating authority, after appropriating the subsequent deposit, along with interest thereon, has concluded as due compliance. We have no reason to interfere with that portion of the order - Insofar as the contested amount of ₹ 2,15,772, along with interest thereon, alleged to have been recovered from recipients of service is concerned, no evidence has been presented before us of not being obliged to comply with section 73A of Finance Act, 1994. We, therefore, find no grounds to interfere with that portion of the order, too. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over classification of taxable service as 'goods transport agency' or 'courier agency'
- Differential tax demands and recoveries made from recipients of taxable service

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dispute over classification of taxable service
The appeals before the Tribunal involved two separate proceedings concerning M/s V Express and M/s V Trans Ltd. The issue in dispute was the classification of the service provided by the appellants as either 'goods transport agency' or 'courier agency'. The tax liability was contested based on investigations and interpretations of relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner of Service Tax upheld the proposal to revise the taxable service but limited the recovery to a specific period due to interpretational confusion. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of the two taxable entries and the circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The Tribunal found that the legislative intent in taxing these two distinct services must be enforced without ambiguity. The conflicting viewpoints of the adjudicating authorities and the lack of concrete evidence led the Tribunal to conclude that the demand for differential tax was not sustainable.

Issue 2: Differential tax demands and recoveries
The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had complied with one computation of tax recovered but not deposited. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the recovery made from recipients of the taxable service as it was required to be deposited with the exchequer as per the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Revenue and allowed the appeal of M/s V Express to the extent of setting aside the differential tax arising from the reclassification in the first impugned order. The Tribunal's decision was based on the uncertainty in the classification of the taxable service and the lack of concrete evidence supporting the differential tax demands.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on resolving the classification dispute between 'goods transport agency' and 'courier agency' services, emphasizing the need for clarity and adherence to legislative intent. The decision highlighted the importance of concrete evidence and certainty in tax impositions, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and partial relief to M/s V Express.