TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SALEM [2017 (9) TMI 1328 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where in a similar situation, it was held that Being a proprietary concern, the appellant as a consignee of GTA services will not fall under the category of corporation, society or cooperative society. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.ST/641/2012 - FINAL ORDER No. 40110/2019 - Dated:- 8-1-2019 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri R. Balagopal, Consultant For the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar The facts of the case are that proceedings had been initiated against the appellants for alleged non-payment of service tax liability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that appellants are a partnership firm no cognizance has been accorded to the proof adduced by them. Ld. Consultant has also submitted that even the registration certificate has been issued to the assessee as a proprietary concern. 5. Viewed in this light, we find that appellant is not required to discharge tax liability under GTA. We also find resonance in our conclusion from the Tribunal s decision in Andal Motors (supra). The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below : 4.2 For better understanding of the issue at hand, it would be useful to reproduce the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 as under : (v) in relation to taxable service provided by a goods transport agency, where the consigno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir having incurred freight charges for inward transportation and that due to their ignorance of service tax liability and also service tax provisions, they had not paid service tax on the freight charges paid during the material period. I also find that the service provider obtained service tax registration subsequently and paid appropriate service tax along with relevant interest. This goes to confirm their liability for payment of service tax. 4.4 Thus, just because the proprietor of a proprietaryship concern, whose level of education and degree of legal knowledge does not appear to be very high, on being interrogated by the officers makes an admission that he is liable to pay service tax liability, that would not be a justificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the registration under CST/TNVAT have been issued only to proprietor M. Mani, M/s. Andal Motors . Department has sought to assign the appellant as Proprietary Limited Company , an entity which, in our opinion, does not exist. It is also not forthcoming from the facts on record that appellants are a dealer of excisable goods registered under the Central Excise provisions. 4.6 Viewed in this light, we find merit in the appellant s main plea that there can be no tax liability at all on them since they will not be covered under Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 or either in any of the guidelines listed therein in the capacity of a consignee of goods by Piaggio Vehicles (P) Ltd. In the light of the discussions herein a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
