TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal clarifies liability for service tax on freight collection by consignors</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore clarified the liability to pay service tax for freight collected by consignors. Relying on Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the ... Transport of goods-Freight-Notification No. 35/2004-ST, dated 03.12.2004- The appellant had collected freight amount separately from Steel Authority of India Ltd., by the supplies made in appellant’s own vehicle during the period December 2006 to January 2007. Lower authority confirms the demand of service tax based upon the Notification No. 35/2004-ST, dated 03.12.2004- being a consigner. In the light of the decision of MSPL Ltd. v .CCE 2009 -TMI - 32448 - CESTAT, BANGALORE CESTAT) held that appellants transport the goods in their own vehicle to the buyer. The buyer is a person who actually pays the freight. Thus the liability to pat tax is on the buyer not on the service provider. Therefore, Impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set-aside. Issues:Interpretation of Service Tax Rules regarding liability to pay service tax for freight collected by consignors.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore addressed the issue of liability to pay service tax on freight collected by consignors. The case involved the appellant collecting freight separately from a company for supplies made in the appellant's own vehicle. The lower authorities had confirmed the demand for service tax based on the consignor being a Goods Transport Agency. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the case of MSPL Ltd. v. CCE and highlighted the legislative intent to tax only services provided by Goods Transport Agents to customers, not owners. The Tribunal emphasized Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, which defines the person liable to pay service tax as the one who pays or is liable to pay the freight. The rule specifies certain entities, including factories and companies, as consignors who are liable to pay service tax. The Tribunal concluded that since the buyer, who pays the freight, is not the consignor but the appellant, the appellant has no liability to pay service tax. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, following the precedent set in the MSPL Ltd. case.In summary, the judgment clarified the interpretation of the Service Tax Rules regarding the liability to pay service tax for freight collected by consignors. It emphasized that the legislative intent was to tax services provided by Goods Transport Agents to customers, not owners of the vehicles. By analyzing Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, the Tribunal determined that the liability to pay service tax falls on the entity that pays or is liable to pay the freight, which in this case was the appellant, not the buyer. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the demand for service tax, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the established legal principles and precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
