2015 (10) TMI 53 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Upholds Service Tax Demand for GTA Services, Rejects Exemption Claims

The Tribunal upheld the Service Tax demand of Rs. 58,90,811 against the appellant for GTA services rendered, rejecting arguments on liability and ... GTA service - reverse charge - penalties under Sections 77 and 78 - benefit under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 - Held that:- Under Section 65(50b), Goods Transport Agency means ‘any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called’. Section 65(105(zzp) defines taxable service as ‘service provided or to be provided to any person, by a goods transport agency, in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage’. From these legal definitions it is clear that any person (including individuals) who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road is liable to Service Tax. There is no exclusion of individual truck owners from the purview of Service Tax levy under the law. However, vide Section 68(2) read with Rule 2(l)(d)(v) in respect of certain categories of service recipients the liability to pay Service Tax has been fastened on the recipients of service in respect of 7 categories of persons. In the case before us, the appellant has not been able to lead any evidence to the effect that in respect of the consideration received for which Service Tax demand has been confirmed, the services were rendered to persons specified in Rule 2(l)(d)(v). Therefore, the appellant cannot take the plea that they are not liable to pay Service Tax on the services rendered by them. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Service Tax demand confirmation against the appellant for GTA service rendered, liability under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, applicability of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, interpretation of Section 68(1) and 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, eligibility for Notification No. 34/2004-S.T., reliance on previous Tribunal decisions, liability of individual truck owners for Service Tax.Analysis:Service Tax Demand Confirmation:The appeal challenged the Order-in-Original confirming a Service Tax demand of Rs. 58,90,811/- against the appellant for GTA service rendered from 2005-06 to 2009-10. The appellant argued that they were not liable to pay Service Tax on certain considerations received, citing Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand after considering submissions and evidence presented by the appellant.Interpretation of Legal Provisions:The appellant contended that as a truck owner, they were not liable to pay Service Tax under the Finance Act, 1994, and relied on previous Tribunal decisions. However, the Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions under Section 65(50b) and 65(105)(zzp), clarifying that any person providing goods transport services by road is liable to Service Tax. The liability under Section 68(2) read with Rule 2(1)(d)(v) was discussed, emphasizing the responsibility of the service provider to ensure services were rendered to specified categories of persons.Eligibility for Exemption:The appellant claimed eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 34/2004-S.T. for consignments under Rs. 750, but failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. The Tribunal noted the absence of proof regarding freight charges for individual consignments being less than Rs. 750, thereby rejecting the appellant's exemption plea.Reliance on Previous Tribunal Decisions:The appellant cited previous Tribunal decisions to support their argument that individual truck owners were not subject to Service Tax for GTA services. However, the Tribunal differentiated the present case based on legal provisions and lack of evidence supporting the appellant's position.Conclusion:After thorough analysis, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's appeal and upheld the impugned order confirming the Service Tax demand. The appeal was dismissed as lacking in merits, emphasizing the legal provisions and absence of evidence supporting the appellant's contentions.