2025 (12) TMI 220 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax demand quashed for transport by individual truck owners, no consignment notes, covered by Section 66D(p)(i)

Indian Tobacco Traders Versus Commissioner of Central Tax Guntur - GST

CESTAT (Hyd) allowed the appeal, holding that service tax under GTA could not be levied where the appellant availed transport services from individual ... Levy of service tax - GTA Service - appellant availed the services of individual truck owners / Goods Transport Operators (GTO) - transporters have not issued any consignment note - negative listed service under Entry (p) (i) of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- Co-ordinate Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Chartered Logistics Ltd., [2023 (7) TMI 883 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] held that transportation of goods by assessee would not be taxable as GTA service when consignment note was not issued by assessee and said service was clearly excluded from taxable services being covered in ‘Negative List’ entry under Section 66D(P)(i)(A) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the case of M/s Vaishnav Marbles Pvt Ltd and others, [2024 (5) TMI 274 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] Principal Bench, New Delhi held that if a person has provided goods transport service but has not issued the consignment note, Service Tax from that person cannot be recovered under the category of GTA. Even in the case of M/s Bothra Shipping Services [2025 (9) TMI 1715 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], this Bench already held that the issue is no longer res-integra that when there is no issuance of consignment note, there cannot be a GTA service and therefore, no demand can be made from either consignor or consignee. However, if GTA service has been provided, then they are liable to pay Service Tax. Therefore, issue is already settled that when there is no issue of consignment note no demand can be raised. The demand of Service Tax, interest and penalty are not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside - Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether services of transportation of tobacco leaves and processed tobacco by individual truck owners, without issuance of consignment notes, are taxable as 'Goods Transport Agency' (GTA) services under the Finance Act, 1994. 1.2 Whether any documents such as challans, slips, bills or weighing slips issued or used in the course of transport, though not fulfilling the statutory ingredients, can still be treated as 'consignment notes' so as to attract Service Tax under GTA. 1.3 Whether, in light of the statutory definition of 'goods transport agency' and judicial precedents, Service Tax demand with interest and penalties could be sustained on the appellant as recipient of transport services from individual truck owners. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Taxability of transport services by individual truck owners in absence of consignment notes under GTA (a) Legal framework 2.1 The Court examined Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 (Negative List), particularly Entry (p)(i), under which transportation of goods by road is excluded from Service Tax, except when provided by a 'goods transport agency'. 2.2 The Court noted Section 65B(26) of the Finance Act, 1994 defining 'goods transport agency' as any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called. 2.3 The Court also referred to the explanation to Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 defining 'consignment note' as a serially numbered document issued by a goods transport agency against receipt of goods for transport by road, containing (i) name of consignor and consignee, (ii) registration number of the goods carriage, (iii) details of goods transported, (iv) place of origin and destination, and (v) person liable for payment of Service Tax. (b) Interpretation and reasoning 2.4 The Court accepted that the appellant engaged individual truck owners / operators, who transported the goods and collected freight, and that no consignment notes were issued by such truck owners. The goods moved under the appellant's own challans/documents. 2.5 The Court noted that it is a settled principle, reiterated in decisions of co-ordinate Benches and upheld by the Supreme Court, that even if a person provides goods transport service, in the absence of issuance of a consignment note, such person does not become a 'goods transport agency' and Service Tax under GTA cannot be levied. 2.6 The Court relied particularly on the decisions holding that transportation by persons not issuing consignment notes is covered by the Negative List entry for 'transportation of goods by road', and therefore excluded from taxability under GTA. 2.7 The Court distinguished the decision of the High Court that was relied upon by the Department (dealing with liability of a goods transport agency that issues consignment notes to specified categories of recipients), on the ground that in the instant case there was no consignment note at all and therefore the factual and legal basis for that ruling did not apply. (c) Conclusions 2.8 In absence of issuance of consignment notes by the individual truck owners, they did not qualify as 'goods transport agency' within the meaning of Section 65B(26) and Rule 4B, and the services received by the appellant were covered by the Negative List under Section 66D(p)(i). 2.9 Consequently, the demand of Service Tax on the appellant under GTA for the disputed periods was not sustainable. Issue 2: Whether non-statutory documents (chits, slips, bills, weighing slips, challans) can be treated as 'consignment notes' (a) Legal framework 2.10 The Court applied the statutory definition of 'consignment note' in the explanation to Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, requiring a specific type of document, serially numbered and containing defined particulars. (b) Interpretation and reasoning 2.11 The Department argued that any form of document such as a chit, slip, bill, or similar writing, or even oral arrangements, could effectively serve as a consignment note for the purposes of GTA, and that any document on the basis of which payment was made could be treated as a consignment note. 2.12 The Court held that where the law prescribes that something be done in a particular manner (here, issuance of a consignment note with specific particulars), it must be done only in that manner. 2.13 The Court emphasized that while a contract between parties may be oral, a consignment note cannot be oral; it must be a document conforming to the statutory requirements. 2.14 The Court rejected the contention that even a weighing slip issued by the appellant to the truck owner could be treated as a consignment note, as such documents did not contain the mandatory particulars delineated in Rule 4B and were not issued as consignment notes by a goods transport agency. 2.15 The Court distinguished the precedent relied upon by the Department, where sample vouchers/invoices containing truck number, amount, and load were available and treated as consignment notes, by observing that no such comparable vouchers or invoices were available in the present case. (c) Conclusions 2.16 Only a document meeting the statutory conditions in Rule 4B can qualify as a 'consignment note'; consignment notes cannot be implied, oral, or inferred from generic slips, challans or other internal documents lacking the prescribed particulars. 2.17 In the present case, no document satisfying the statutory definition of consignment note was issued, and hence there was no 'consignment note' for the purposes of GTA. Issue 3: Sustainability of Service Tax demand, interest and penalties in light of statutory definition and precedents (a) Legal framework 2.18 The Court considered Section 66D (Negative List), Section 65B(26) (definition of goods transport agency), and Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, along with several decisions of co-ordinate Benches and a decision of the Supreme Court affirming that, absent issuance of consignment notes, liability under GTA does not arise. (b) Interpretation and reasoning 2.19 The Court observed that there exists a consistent line of decisions from co-ordinate Benches holding that where consignment notes are not issued, there is no GTA service and hence no Service Tax liability can be fastened on either consignor or consignee under GTA. 2.20 The Court noted that single-Member decisions taking a contrary view (that any person transporting goods by road is liable) are not binding on a Division Bench and, moreover, stand in conflict with a catena of decisions of co-ordinate Benches and higher judicial authority, thereby having no legal significance for the present controversy. 2.21 The Court reiterated that the issue is no longer res integra: in the absence of issuance of consignment notes, GTA service does not arise, and no Service Tax demand can be made from either the transporter or the service recipient under that category. (c) Conclusions 2.22 Since there was no issuance of consignment notes, the transport services used by the appellant were outside the scope of GTA, fell within the Negative List of services by way of transportation of goods by road, and were not exigible to Service Tax. 2.23 Accordingly, the entire demand of Service Tax along with interest and penalties was held to be unsustainable in law and was set aside. 2.24 The appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.