Transport documents bearing consignment-note substance can trigger Goods Transport Agency taxation despite informal labels and individual truck ownership.

Goods Transport Agency classification depends on whether transport documents substantively function as consignment notes, not on their title or the transporter's status. Documents described as pay slips may satisfy Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 where they record vehicle details, goods description and quantity, loading and unloading points, and transporter acknowledgment. Individual truck ownership therefore does not, by itself, exclude the service from Goods Transport Agency treatment. On the stated facts, the transportation was treated as taxable Goods Transport Agency service, the levy was considered valid, and the refund claim was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether transportation of goods by individual truck owners was taxable as Goods Transport Agency service where the transport documents were described as pay slips, and whether absence of documents formally titled as consignment notes defeated the service tax levy and refund rejection.

Analysis: The definition under Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994 covers any person providing transport of goods by road who issues a consignment note, by whatever name called. The statutory focus is on the nature and contents of the document rather than the status of the transporter or the label used for the document. The pay slips in question contained vehicle details, description and quantity of goods, loading and unloading points, and acknowledgment by the transporter, thereby substantially answering the description of a consignment note within Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The fact that the transporters were individual truck owners did not exclude them from the scope of Goods Transport Agency service. The cited authorities were found distinguishable because, in those matters, no transport documents answering the description of consignment notes were issued.

Conclusion: The transportation services were rightly classified as Goods Transport Agency service, the service tax levy was valid, and the refund claim was not sustainable; the issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---