Appellate authority upholds GST on transport services, citing Goods Transport Agency definition. Rule 42 CGST Rules 2017 applied.

The appellate authority rejected the appeal, affirming that the appellant's transport services are subject to GST. The authority held that the absence of consignment notes does not exempt the services from GST, as they fall under the definition of a Goods Transport Agency. Additionally, the authority confirmed the applicability of Rule 42 of the CGST Rules 2017 for apportioning Input Tax Credit between taxable and non-taxable supplies.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Whether transportation by own vehicles on the basis of Invoice(s) and E-way Bill without issuing the consignment note by the appellant transporter is covered under exempted supply/non-GST supply.
2. Applicability of Rule 42 of the CGST Rules 2017 in cases where there are GST and non-GST supplies with common consumption of input and input services.

Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Exemption from GST for Transportation without Consignment Note
The appellant, M/s. K.M. Trans Logistics Private Limited, argued that their transport services using their own vehicles without issuing consignment notes should be considered non-GST supply. They relied on Notification No. 12/2018-Central Tax, which amended the E-Way Bill rules, and claimed that the format of the E-Way Bill does not mandate the issuance of consignment notes, thus categorizing their services as non-taxable.

The Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling (RAAR) had previously ruled that the appellant, being a registered Goods Transport Agency (GTA), is not exempt from paying GST. The appellant contested this ruling, asserting that E-Way Bills can be generated without consignment notes, and hence their services should be exempt from GST.

Upon review, the appellate authority found that the appellant’s activities fall under the definition of a Goods Transport Agency, which involves the issuance of consignment notes. The authority emphasized that the absence of a consignment note does not alter the nature of the service provided. The consignment note serves to formalize the responsibilities and rights between the transporter and the client, and its non-issuance does not exempt the service from GST.

The appellate authority concluded that the appellant's services are liable to GST as per Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), which specifies the tax rates for various goods transport services. The argument regarding the format of the E-Way Bill was deemed irrelevant to the determination of GST liability.

Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 42 of CGST Rules 2017
The appellant sought clarification on whether Rule 42 of the CGST Rules 2017 applies in cases where there are both GST and non-GST supplies with common consumption of input and input services. The RAAR had ruled that the amount of input tax credit (ITC) should be restricted to the portion attributable to taxable supplies, including zero-rated supplies, as per Section 17(2) of the GST Act read with Rule 42 of the GST Rules, 2017.

The appellate authority upheld this interpretation, confirming that the ITC must be apportioned between taxable and exempt supplies. This ensures that only the ITC related to taxable supplies is claimed, in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act and Rules.

Conclusion
The appellate authority rejected the appeal, affirming that the appellant's services are subject to GST. The services provided by the appellant, whether classified as goods transport services or rental services of transport vehicles, are taxable under the applicable GST notifications. The authority also confirmed the applicability of Rule 42 for apportioning ITC between taxable and non-taxable supplies.

Order
The appeal filed by the appellant is rejected, and it is held that the services provided by the appellant are liable to GST as specified under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended), read with relevant exemption notifications, based on the exact nature of services provided.

---