9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the issue of a consignment note. Therefore, no stretch of imagination can document issued by District Supply Officer conveying the goods transported be construed as a consignment note to render the respondent to be a goods transport agency. The appellant is not liable to pay the service tax in the light of the provisions of Rule 2(l)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 because both the consignor and consignee fall under the category of specified categories and if any tax is to be paid, then the tax is to be paid by DC of Karwar and not the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/556/2008-DB - 20804/2018 - Dated:- 8-6-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctivities of the appellant and issued a show-cause notice demanding service tax from the appellant under Goods Transport Agency. After following the due process, the original authority confirmed and demanded an amount of service tax of ₹ 10,86,073/- and education cess of ₹ 21,721/- besides imposing penalties under provisions Sections 76, 77 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the benefit of Notification No.32/2004-ST dt. 03/12/2004 and set aside the fines and penalties imposed by the original authority and confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,76,949/- along with interest. Aggrieved of the said order, appellant filed the present appeal. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceipt or any such document containing the name of the consignor or consignee and therefore the contention of the appellant is that he could not have treated as GTA and the activity of the appellant was not taxable under the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzp). In order to support this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE ST, Aurangabad Vs. Jaikumar Fulchand Ajmera [2017(48) STR 62 (Tri. Mum.]. Further, the second submission of the learned counsel was that even if the appellant is considered as GTA still he is not liable to pay tax in the light of the provisions of Rule 2(l)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 since both the consignor and the consignee fall under the category of specified persons under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ambit of a subordinate legislation to create the class of taxable persons by imposing a condition that would, perforce bring such persons within the tax net. The intent and purpose of Rule 4B has been misinterpreted by the reviewing authority. 5. The goods transported by the District Supply Officer are for a public service which involves a distribution chain. The distributors are mere designated outlets for the public distribution system and, till the transfer of title of the goods to the intended beneficiaries of the system, the goods are in the possession of the District Supply Officer; consequently during the transportation stage, the respondent does not acquire any lien on the goods which is implicit in the issue of a con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
