Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (6) TMI 1184 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - Business Auxiliary services - transportation of their raw materials/finished products in and out of their factory premises - reverse charge mechanism - Rule 2(1)(d)(B) r/w N/N. 30/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012 - HELD THAT - In this case it is the appellant who has hired the vehicles from vehicle owners and at the most it could be a service provided by such vehicle owners to the Appellant for which there should have been flow of consideration by the appellant to them. That apart there are no agreement or contract in this regard between the appellant and such vehicle owners for providing any service - Undeniably it was the responsibility of the appellant to provide GTA service to CCCL by virtue of the existing contract between them. It is a fact borne on record that in respect hired vehicles CCCL were not paying the freight directly to the other transporters because they were under no obligation to pay them. Hence the assumption that the amount retained by the appellant was towards the promotion of transport business of the other transporters is without any basis. This is also because the goods transport service is provided to CCCL by these transporters but the payment for the same is by the appellant. Hence to allege transport business the Revenue should have enough evidence to indicate that such transporters were in the transport business they had an understanding with the appellant seeking promotion and that the same was for a consideration. There is no agreement/contract and there is also no flow of consideration from the transporters / vehicle owners to the appellant for having rendered service of BAS and hence the allegation of provision of BAS lacks merit. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
|