2013 (12) TMI 1179 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal upholds tax liability for Goods Transport Agency provider based on undisclosed importers.

The tribunal upheld the decision requiring the applicant, a provider of Goods Transport Agency Service, to pay tax based on consignment notes issued to a ... Stay application - Goods Transport Agency Service - Held that:- in terms of Rule 2 (1) (d) (v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, person liable for paying service tax in relation to taxable service provided by a goods transport agency, any person who pays or liable to pay freight either himself or through his agent for the transportation of the goods, subject to the consignor or consignee of goods as mentioned in clause (a) to (g) is mentioned therein. M/s. Ringo Cargo Care, a proprietorship firm is not covered in clause (a) to (g) of the said Rule. In the present case, the applicant has not mentioned the name of the importers in the consignment note and prima facie, the applicant is liable to pay tax - Prima facie case not in favour of assessee - Stay granted partly. Issues:1. Liability of the applicant to pay tax on Goods Transport Agency Service.2. Applicability of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.3. Bar on demand by limitation.4. Interpretation of consignment notes and reverse charge mechanism.Analysis:1. The judgment revolves around the liability of the applicant, engaged in providing 'Goods Transport Agency Service,' to pay tax. The original authority confirmed a tax demand based on the issuance of consignment notes to a proprietorship concern. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to an appeal.2. The appellant argued that the proprietorship concern acted as a C&F Agent and the freight was paid by the importer, absolving them of tax liability under Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant also contended that the demand was time-barred, citing a previous show cause notice on the same issue. The appellant relied on legal precedent to support their arguments.3. On the contrary, the respondent highlighted that the consignment notes did not mention the importer's name, emphasizing the role of the proprietorship firm in the transaction. The respondent argued that the reverse charge mechanism did not apply, making the applicant liable to pay tax. The respondent asserted that the current show cause notice was distinct from the previous one, justifying the extended period of limitation.4. The tribunal analyzed Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, concerning the person liable to pay service tax for goods transport agency services. The tribunal noted that the name of the importers was not disclosed in the consignment notes, indicating potential liability for the applicant. The tribunal acknowledged the Commissioner (Appeals)' detailed findings on the limitation issue, which would be revisited during the final appeal hearing. As a result, the tribunal directed the applicant to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe, with further proceedings contingent on compliance and reporting.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal reasoning and considerations underlying the decision regarding the liability for tax on Goods Transport Agency Service, the application of relevant rules, the bar on demand by limitation, and the interpretation of consignment notes in relation to the reverse charge mechanism.