9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, and hence did not pay any Service tax on such transportation services. The appellant has been duly filing Service tax returns and discharging its liability as applicable, from time to time and an investigation was conducted at the premises of the appellant on 11.05.2020 and based on information/data received from Income tax Department, it was found that there is a difference between the figures of sale of services reflected in Income Tax Returns/Form 26AS and ST-3 Value for the Financial Year 2016-17. The Revenue observed that the appellant has received Rs.43,10,61,862.39/- as "Transportation Receipts" and Rs. 3,74,550/- as "Sales of WP," and has not properly accounted for the same in their Service Tax returns. 2.1 Therefore, a show-ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where consignment note is not issued is no longer res-integra and has been settled in favour of the appellant. It is her submission that it is the facts on record that the consignment note has never been issued and the appellant is a proprietorship concern, is not Goods Transport Agency (GTA). Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax. To support her contention, she relies on the following case laws : (i) Chartered Logistics Vs. C.C.E. Ahmedabad-II reported at 2023 (7) TMI 883 - CESTAT Ahmedabad (ii) Vaishnav Marbles Private Ltd. v. Commissioner 2024 (5) TMI 274 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (iii) Tata Power Company Ltd. v. Commissioner 2024 (10) TMI 1062 - CESTAT KOLKATA (iv) Manak Chand Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Ex. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved that the appellants have been awarded with the work of transporting by the various parties to various destinations during the period 2016-17 and the appellant has submitted invoices raised against the consideration received from various service recipients. He further recorded that the services provided by the appellant to various entities as mentioned herein above, do not classify under the category of "Goods Transport Agency" as per Clause (26) of Section 65B of the Finance Act, 1944 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 read with Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rule, 1994. Admittedly, the ld.Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant is not the GTA. In that circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under Section 66D (p) of the Act., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
