Composite cargo handling contract not taxable as GTA service absent consignment note, so reverse-charge liability failed.

Transportation under a composite cargo handling arrangement was not taxable as Goods Transport Agency service where no consignment note was issued. The record showed a single contract covering handling, loading, unloading, stacking and incidental logistics operations, with only consolidated invoicing allocating amounts between handling and transportation. In the absence of a consignment note, the service did not satisfy the statutory GTA definition, and the Revenue could not artificially split the composite contract to impose reverse-charge liability on the recipient. The alleged GTA demand therefore did not survive, and the related tax, interest and penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on transportation charges received from H&T contractors as Goods Transport Agency service, when no consignment note was issued and the underlying arrangement was a composite cargo handling contract.

Analysis: The contract with the H&T contractors covered handling, loading, unloading, stacking, incidental operations and transportation of containers within the warehousing and customs logistics chain. The contractors raised consolidated invoices splitting consideration into cargo handling and transportation components, but the record did not show issuance of any consignment note. In the absence of a consignment note, the service could not be treated as Goods Transport Agency service within the statutory definition. The arrangement was found to be a composite cargo handling contract, and the Revenue could not split or vivisect it into separate transportation services for levy under the reverse charge mechanism. The appellant had also treated the entire activity as cargo handling in its outward billing and discharged tax on that basis.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the alleged GTA portion under reverse charge mechanism, and the demand did not survive.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the service tax demands, interest and penalties confirmed below were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no consignment note is issued, transportation cannot be classified as Goods Transport Agency service, and a composite cargo handling contract cannot be artificially split to fasten reverse-charge tax liability on the service recipient.

---