TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1092
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....untry, on 'reverse charge' under section 65(105)(zzp) of Finance Act, 1994. The lower authorities have held that liability devolved on the appellant, as recipient of 'goods transport agency' service, defined in section 65(50a) of Finance Act, 1994, for discharge of tax. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the vehicles had been procured, and paid for, on kilometre basis and as neither destination nor quantity carried were of any relevance, the contractual engagement could not substitute for 'consignment note' on which alone taxability may arise. He further submitted that the dispute for the period from 1st July 2009 to 30th June 2012, had been disposed off by the Tribunal, in Dinshaw Diary Foods Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2018 (13) GSTL 170 (Tri-Mumbai)], holding that '5. We find that the Appellant has hired the vehicles on the kilometres basis and monthly bills are raised on the basis of Kilometres travelled by the Vans. In such case when the vehicles are hired on monthly basis and the charges are not based upon destination but on kms basis, it cannot be said that the services involved are of Goods Transport Agency. Therefore in such case no co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es consignment note, by whatever name called; It is clear that to be called "goods transport agency" a person should fulfill two conditions, namely, he should provide service in relation to transport of goods by road and issue consignment note, by whatever name called. In the present case, admittedly, no consignment note was issued by the goods transporter. The original authority held that the slip/challans issued for monitoring purposes by the appellant (receiver of service) will satisfy such conditions and tax liability can be upheld. We are unable to understand or appreciate such reasoning. The original authority is creating an amalgamation of service provider and recipient to fit in the definition of Goods Transport Agency. In other words, the transport of coal is done by the transport contractor which satisfied the first condition but no consignment note being issued. The slip issued by the appellant as recipient of service is taken with such activity of transport to bring in tax liability. We find that such attempt is beyond the scope of law and without merit. 7. The matter has come up for decisions on earlier occasions by the Tribunal in Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that tax liability under Goods Transport Agency service cannot be sustained against the appellant. The ratio laid down by the Tribunal in various decisions discussed above are to be followed as there is no reason to differ with the same. We also note that appellant is correct regarding their contention on the issue of interpretation with reference to time-bar of the demand also. 11. In view of the above, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly set aside the same. The appeal is allowed. Thus following the ratio of above decision wherein the Tribunal has held that in absence of consignment note services cannot be considered as GTA Service and from the facts emanating from the present case, we hold that the demand of service tax under the category of "Goods Transport Agency" does not sustain. We thus set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals with consequential reliefs, if any.' 4. Furthermore, he submitted that this was consistent with earlier decisions of the Tribunal in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2017 (47) STR 93 (Tri- Del.)] and in Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umbered and contains the name of consignor and consignee, registration number of the goods carriage in which goods are transported, details of goods transported, details of the place of origin and destination, person liable for paying Service Tax whether consignor, consignee or Goods Transport Agency. Thus mere transportation of the goods in a Motor Vehicle is not the service provided by a Goods Transport Agency. A Goods Transport Agency in terms of its definition under Section 65(50b) provides service in relation to transportation of goods under a consignment note which should have the particulars as prescribed in explanation to Rule 4B. In the present case admittedly no consignment notes have been issued. The fortnightly bills cannot be treated as consignment notes, as a consignment note issued by Goods Transport Agency represent its liability to transport the consignment handed over to it to the destination and deliver the same to the consignee and merely a bill issued for transportation of goods cannot be treated as Consignment Note. The fact of non-issue of consignment to M/s. Nandganj is admitted in the show cause notice itself. In case of M/s. Bajpur though it is not mention....