Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 723 - AT - Service TaxNature of transaction - Classification of services - Supply of Tangible Goods Services or GTA Services - supply of chassis by the appellant on which the specialized tanks/ equipments were mounted by M/s INOX - period from October, 2010 to March-15 - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, appellant was issuing consignment notes to cover the transportation of the goods from premises of service recipient to various points and for such transportation he was paid tax on the fixed amount and variable amount, nature of payment will not alter the nature of transaction. The transaction continues to be governed by the documents made in this regard which are the consignment notes. These consignment notes clearly established that the service provided by the appellant was the services of GTA and it has been constantly held that once consignment notes are issued then there cannot be any doubt in this regard. In the case of SHRIPAD CONCRETE PVT. LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ST, SURAT-I [2023 (8) TMI 707 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], the issue has been examined both for pre-negative list period and post-negative list period and it was held that the appellant’s service is correctly classifiable under Goods Transport Agency service for which service recipient M/s. Ultratech Cement Limited have discharged the service tax as required under Rule 2(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 under reverse charge basis. Therefore, the demand under the category of Supply of Tangible Goods service shall not sustain. As all the evidences available on record and the decisions as above clearly show that the transactions were of GTA, service tax has rightly paid by the recipient of service i.e. M/s Inox. Admittedly, in the present case entire tax due has been paid in respect of these transactions between the appellant and his client. That being, the same transaction could not be levied to service tax both at the hands of the service recipient and the service provider under different category of services. In this case, if these transactions were to be taxed under the category of SOTG, as has been held by the impugned order entire amount paid by the service recipient under the category of GTA services on the reverse charge basis should have been refunded - There is no scope of double transaction under the statute. The demand made in the present case after noting the payment of tax as the hand of service recipient the same transaction goes contrary to the Article 265 of the Constitution and hence cannot be sustained. The demand cannot be sustained on merits - issues of extended period of limitation, demand of interest and penalties imposed are irrelevant and are not being taken up - appeal allowed.
|