Freight payments to tractor trolley owners for gas cylinder transport without LR notes not taxable GTA services

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that freight payments to tractor trolley owners for transporting gas cylinders without issuing LR/consignment notes do not constitute taxable goods transport agency (GTA) services. The tribunal found that individual tractor trolley owners provided transportation directly, not through a transport agency, and essential GTA criteria were unfulfilled. Following precedent from LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING CO. case, the tribunal ruled such services fall outside GTA definition and are not liable for service tax. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of Service Tax on freight paid to tractor trolley owners.

Summary:

1. Liability of Service Tax on Freight Paid to Tractor Trolley Owners:

The primary issue in this case is whether the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax on the amount of freight paid to tractor trolley owners who did not issue any LR/consignment notes and transported goods for the appellant.

1.1 Facts of the Case:

The appellant, engaged in the production and clearance of industrial gases, availed GTA services and paid Service Tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism. They also used private tractor owners for local transportation of goods. The department contended that the appellant should pay Service Tax under the reverse charge mechanism on the freight paid to these tractor trolley owners.

1.2 Appellant's Argument:

The appellant argued that the transportation service was availed directly from individual tractor trolley owners, who did not issue LRs/consignment notes and were primarily engaged in agricultural activities. Therefore, the service does not fall under the 'goods transport agency service' and should not be liable to Service Tax. The appellant relied on several judgments and CBIC Circular No. 95/6/2007-ST dated 11.06.07 to support their claim.

1.3 Respondent's Argument:

The respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order, asserting that the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax on the freight paid to the tractor trolley owners.

1.4 Tribunal's Findings:

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the transportation service was provided by individual tractor trolley owners without issuing any consignment notes. Therefore, the service does not meet the criteria for classification under GTA as defined in Section 65(50b) and Section 65(105)(zzp) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including Lakshminarayana Mining Co. and Bharat Swabhiman, which established that the issuance of consignment notes is a non-derogable requirement for a service to be classified as GTA.

1.5 Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that since no consignment notes were issued and the service was provided by individual tractor trolley owners, it does not fall under the definition of GTA service. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax on the freight paid to these tractor trolley owners. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Final Decision:

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, as pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2023.

---