<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (7) TMI 9 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794123</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:47:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 9 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794123</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794123</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>