Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 799 - AT - Service TaxLevy of Service tax - GTA Services - Demand on the ground that appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence to establish which truck/ vehicle was used for providing the taxable service - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the department that appellant was also registered as the Goods Transport Agency. Thus, it becomes clear that the appellant was an individual who was the owner of the trucks and was in the business of giving them on rent to goods transport agency. As is apparent from the definition of taxable service of Goods Transport Agency that the taxability does not at all arise on an individual. “Goods Transport Agency” means any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called; Thus, it can be seen that issuance of a consignment note is the sine-qua-non for a supplier of service to be considered as a Goods Transport Agency. It makes clear that tax liability under this heading does not arise against the individual person who owns the truck. It also becomes clear that the agency who is providing service of Goods Transport Agency is not required to be the owner of vehicle which are to be used by such agencies for transportation of the goods. Mega exemption of 20.06.12 clarifies that truck can be taken on hire by the GTA and in that case, the truck owner is exempted from any service tax liability. Hence the demand confirmed with respect to the amount received against the truck on hire, is also held to not to be sustainable, as such, is liable to be set aside. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Vide the Show Cause Notice of the year 2020, the demand for the period October, 2014 to June, 2017 has been proposed to be regular. The show cause notice is apparently beyond the normal period of limitation. I do not find any positive evidence nor any specific allegation in the show cause notice about any malafide intent of the appellant to evade the payment of service tax liability. Accordingly, it is held that the Department has wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation. Thus, it becomes clear that the demand against the appellant has wrongly been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority below. He is held to have no service tax liability - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|