Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1063 - AT - Service TaxNon-payment of Service tax - GTA Service or not - transportation charges of the export cargo - consignment note not raised for the service - period from August 2006 to December 2010 - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- As per the definition under 60(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994, only if the service provider in relation to the transportation of goods by road issues a consignment note, the levy of Service Tax would be attracted to the carriage of goods by the goods transport agency. The Service Tax Rules under Section 2(1)(b), provides that the recipient of service is liable to pay the Service Tax - In the present case, the demand has been raised upon the appellant alleging that they are the recipient of services of goods transport agency services provided by the CHA. Admittedly, the appellant has not been issued a consignment note. The Tribunal in the case of Carris Pipes and Tubes Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 24 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had occasion to consider the similar issue has observed In cases where admittedly no consignment notes have been issued, the said transporter cannot be called Goods Transport Agency - In the said case, the Tribunal followed the decision in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2016 (8) TMI 677 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], and held that the demand cannot be sustained if no consignment note has been issued to the service recipient. Thus, the demand of Service Tax cannot be sustained. The issue on merits is answered in favour of assessee. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The situation is entirely a revenue neutral as well as the fact that several audits have been conducted raising the objection of non-payment of Service Tax under GTA services. The Department had full knowledge about the issue and still the Show Cause Notice has been issued invoking the extended period which in our view cannot be sustained. The appellant succeeds on the ground of limitation also. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
|