Goods transport by road without consignment note fell in the negative list, not taxable as GTA service.

Transportation of goods by road remained outside tax under the negative list unless the supplier qualified as a Goods Transport Agency by providing transport-related services and issuing a consignment note. On the stated facts, the appellant only carried goods by road, charged freight, did not issue consignment notes, and provided no ancillary transport services. In the absence of evidence satisfying the statutory definition of GTA, the service could not be taxed as a Goods Transport Agency service and fell within the negative list. The demand was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's activity was merely transportation of goods by road covered by the negative list under section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994, or taxable as a Goods Transport Agency service.

Analysis: For the period in dispute, the negative list regime applied, under which transportation of goods by road was excluded from tax except where the service was provided by a Goods Transport Agency. A person qualifies as a GTA only if it provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues a consignment note. The facts showed that the appellant was engaged only in carriage of goods by road, charged mere freight, did not issue consignment notes, and did not provide ancillary services in relation to transportation. In the absence of evidence that the appellant answered the statutory definition of GTA, the demand could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The appellant's activity was not taxable as a Goods Transport Agency service and fell within the negative list. The demand was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.

---