Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 237 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRecovery of service tax - activity of transportation of goods by road and in providing Business Support Service to various clients like, Vehicle Factory Jabalpur, Railway, Bharat Earth Movers Limited, Bharat Electronics Limited and Gun Carriage Factory Jabalpur - scope of definition of ‘Business Entities’ and ‘persons’ as defined under Section 65 (B) (17) and 65 (B) (37) respectively of the Finance Act - HELD THAT:- The appellant was taking trucks of individual owners, admittedly the appellant itself is not a goods transport agency and no consignment note was issued by the appellant. Facts on record also clarifies that the appellant is not engaged in door to door transportation, hence, is not a courier agency. Resultantly, it becomes clear that the service rendered by the appellant is simply the service by way of transportation of goods which is covered under Sub-clause B of Section 66D of Finance Act. Thus, the appellant is wrongly held liable for payment of service tax on the said activity. Coming to the tax liability with respect to legal consultancy services under reverse charge mechanism, it is observed that it is an admitted fact that the amount booked under the head ‘legal expenses’ was not paid to any advocate and affidavit to this effect has also been submitted by the appellant. The adjudicating authority neither has considered the said affidavit nor has appreciated any other evidence on record which may show that the legal expenses were paid to the lawyer. The onus was definitely on Revenue to show that the appellant had received services of Advocate so as to make them liable to pay service tax under reverse charge. In absence thereof, the confirmation on this count is also not sustainable. Once the appellant is held to have no service tax liability, the question of having any intent to evade the same does not at all arise. Resultantly, even penalty has also wrongly imposed on the appellant. The appeal is allowed.
|