2024 (1) TMI 889 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of Service Tax - GTA service or not - transport services were rendered by the individual truck or transport operators - Consignment Note is missing - HELD THAT - The authorities below relying on the decision of the learned Single Member in COROMANDEL AGRO PRODUCTS OILS LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., GUNTUR 2014 (6) TMI 657 - CESTAT BANGALORE have non-suited the appellant on the ground that it is incorrect to say that any transport company which is not issuing Consignment Note is presumed to be GTO. However, it is found that the later decisions by the Division Benches of the Tribunal have categorically laid down the law that in absence of consignment note services cannot be considered as GTA services and the demand of service tax under the category of Goods Transport Agency does not sustain. The goods were transported locally from the mines to the factory site and since the distance to be covered is short, no consignment note has been issued by the service provider and therefore the levy of service tax under the category of Goods Transport Agency is not sustainable in view of the various decisions of the Division Benches of the Tribunal which is binding on me. Therefore, the distinction sought to be placed by the Revenue that the earlier decisions related to mines is not sustainable. The question of the applicability of the exemption notification no.34/2004 ST dated 03.12.2004 or for that matter the invocation of the extended period of limitation requires no perusal. The impugned order deserves to be set aside on the ground that the transport services were rendered by the individual truck or transport operators and therefore no consignment note was issued and as a result, the same would not fall within the scope of the definition of Goods Transport Agency as given in section 65(50 b) of the Finance Act, 1994 - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the demand of service tax on the appellant categorized as "Goods Transport Agency" in the Order-in-Appeal.

Issue 1 - Interpretation of "Goods Transport Agency":
The appellant, registered under Service Tax, was charged with service tax for not including amounts paid to transport agencies between Rs.750 to Rs.1,500 in their tax liability. The Department argued that the gross amount charged for an individual consignment exceeding Rs.750 is subject to service tax, contrary to the exemption notification. The appellant contended that the services received did not fall under the definition of "Goods Transport Agency" as no consignment note was issued, seeking exemption under Notification No.34/2004. The Revenue argued that the appellant's case fell under a specific clause of the notification, making them ineligible for exemption.

Issue 2 - Requirement of Consignment Note for Taxability:
The main argument revolved around the necessity of a consignment note for taxability under "Goods Transport Agency" services. The appellant cited previous decisions stating that the absence of a consignment note negates tax liability under GTA services. The Tribunal noted that in the absence of consignment notes, services cannot be considered as GTA services, citing various precedents supporting this view.

Judgment:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the absence of consignment notes rendered the levy of service tax under Goods Transport Agency unsustainable. The appellant's transportation of goods locally from mines to the factory site, without consignment notes, did not fall under the definition of GTA. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The Tribunal did not delve into the applicability of the exemption notification or the extended period of limitation due to the main issue being decided in favor of the appellant.