Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 303 - AT - Service TaxNon-payment of service tax - appellant though had paid freight, but had not paid the service tax for the transportation of sugarcane from the field to the factory - time limitation - Commercial Vehicle or not - Goods Transport Agency or not - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Revenue has placed reliance in Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER [2017 (3) TMI 1786 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], where it was held that In the present case, transporters transferring sugarcane from Cane Collection Centers to sugar mills and presenting bills for such service, squarely satisfy the requirement of Rule 2(d)(v) read with Section 65(50b) of Finance Act, 1994 - the transporters in the present case are clearly covered by the definition of “Goods Transport Agency” hence Assessees are liable to pay service tax being within the definition of “person liable to pay service tax” under Rule 2(d)(v). The only factual difference between the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the case on hand are, as noted by the Hon’ble High Court, that the sugarcane was transferred to sugar mills by individual truck owners who would charge for such transportation, by presenting bills fortnightly, whereas, here in the case on hand, the agriculturists themselves are transporting the sugarcane to the factory of the appellant and hence, there was no service rendered “in relation to” transportation of goods by road in a goods carriage. This is because, there was actual transportation and not in relation to, as observed in the order of this Bench in LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BENGALURU SOUTH GST COMMISSIONERATE [2019 (7) TMI 917 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. The demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|