2025 (4) TMI 762 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - transportation charges billed by the vendors for the supply of goods using their own vehicles under the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services - HELD THAT - Undisputedly the appellant had received goods delivered as per the condition of purchase order by the vendors at the premises of the appellant. The appellant is purchasing goods from vendors on the basis of free on road delivery wherein the ownership and the possession of the property in goods is transferred to the appellant only when the same are delivered at the warehouse / delivery point. There is no involvement of any Goods Transport Agency but the vendors themselves delivered the goods at the warehouse / delivery point of the appellant. Since no Goods Transport Agency is involved in the transportation of goods to the appellant and no consignment note has been issued for transportation of the goods by the vendors to the appellant therefore the demand of service tax from the appellant who reimbursed the transportation cost mentioned in the invoice of the vendors cannot be sustained. This view has been consistently held by the Tribunal in series of cases included the one R.K. GUPTA C/O. M/S. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. RAIPUR AND VICE-VERSA 2018 (6) TMI 1434 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein it is observed Irrespective freight is shown separately in the invoice the same cannot be considered as equivalent to the consignment note which is the mandatory requirement of Section 65 (50b). Conclusion - The appellant is not liable for service tax under the GTA category and the impugned orders demanding tax are set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered by the Tribunal was whether service tax is payable by the appellant on the transportation charges billed by the vendors for the supply of goods using their own vehicles under the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the absence of a consignment note affects the service tax liability and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The primary legal framework involves the definition of a 'Goods Transport Agency' (GTA) as per Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, which defines it as any person who provides service in relation to the transport of goods by road and issues a consignment note. The Tribunal also referred to Rule 2(d) concerning the person responsible for collecting the service tax.

Several precedents were cited, including judgments from various cases such as Satyam Syntcotex Pvt. Ltd., Sudarshan Suiz Pvt. Ltd., and R.K. Gupta, which consistently held that the issuance of a consignment note is a crucial requirement for a service to qualify as a GTA service.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Tribunal interpreted that for a service to be classified under GTA, the transportation must be carried out by a person or agency specifically providing transportation services and issuing a consignment note. The Tribunal reasoned that since the vendors used their own vehicles to deliver goods and no consignment note was issued, the service does not fall under the GTA category.

Key Evidence and Findings

The key evidence included invoices from vendors like M/s. Jyothi Electricals, which showed transportation charges separately. However, the Tribunal found that the mere mention of transportation charges in invoices does not suffice to classify the service as GTA in the absence of a consignment note.

Application of Law to Facts

The Tribunal applied the legal definition of GTA and found that the vendors did not meet the criteria since they did not issue consignment notes. The Tribunal emphasized that the transportation was part of the purchase agreement, and the vendors themselves delivered the goods, which does not constitute a service by a separate transport agency.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The appellant argued that the absence of a consignment note and the nature of the transaction, which involved vendors delivering goods using their own vehicles, exempted them from service tax liability under GTA. The Revenue's argument focused on the separate billing of transportation charges as a basis for the tax demand. The Tribunal sided with the appellant, highlighting the necessity of a consignment note for GTA classification.

Conclusions

The Tribunal concluded that the service tax demand was unsustainable due to the absence of a consignment note and the nature of the transaction, which did not involve a separate goods transport agency.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a consignment note is a mandatory requirement for a service to be classified as a GTA service. The Tribunal quoted, "Irrespective freight is shown separately in the invoice, the same cannot be considered as equivalent to the consignment note, which is the mandatory requirement of Section 65 (50b)." This principle was reinforced by referencing the case of R.K. Gupta Vs. CCE, Raipur, which supported the view that the absence of a consignment note negates the service tax liability under GTA.

The Tribunal determined that the appellant was not liable for service tax under the GTA category, and the impugned orders demanding tax were set aside. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.