https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35531 The Tribunal held that the appellant, engaged in export of iron ore, was not liable to service tax under GTA for transportation services received from individual truck owners or goods transport operators. Relying on the statutory definition of "Goods Transport Agency" and the Finance Minister's Budget Speech indicating legislative intent not to tax individual truck owners, CESTAT found no evidence that services were received from any GTA issuing consignment notes. Consequently, the demand of differential service tax raised under Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, along with penalties under Section 76, was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 15:03:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35531 The Tribunal held that the appellant, engaged in export of iron ore, was not liable to service tax under GTA for transportation services received from individual truck owners or goods transport operators. Relying on the statutory definition of "Goods Transport Agency" and the Finance Minister's Budget Speech indicating legislative intent not to tax individual truck owners, CESTAT found no evidence that services were received from any GTA issuing consignment notes. Consequently, the demand of differential service tax raised under Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, along with penalties under Section 76, was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35531