2024 (9) TMI 63 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - Liability of appellant to pay service tax under the category of GTA even though the transportation service had been provided by the truck owner and /or by transport operator and did not issue the consignment notes - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT - The demand was raised for the period 2010-11 to 2013-14 for an amount of Rs. 2,86,279/- and the date of show cause notice is 30.07.2015. Thus, the show cause notice has invoked the extended period. It is found that the issue involved is based on the interpretation of taxability under GTA service. In various judgments it has been held that where the consignment note has not been issued, the service cannot be categorized under GTA. Therefore, the appellant had entertained bona fide belief that the receipt of transportation service is not taxable at the end of the appellant. Moreover, the case was made out on the basis of appellant s record during the audit by the Central Excise Officers, therefore, it cannot be said that there is suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the demand for the extended period is not sustainable - the demand set aside only on the ground of time bar without giving conclusive finding on merit. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the category of GTA as the transportation service was provided by the truck owner without issuing consignment notes. The tribunal set aside the demand based on the extended period, citing lack of suppression of facts and bona fide belief by the appellant. The appeal was allowed on 29.08.2024.