TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Goods Transport Operator Services – No confusion in the law – but why Mr. P Chidambaram’s army is so confused?
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods Transport Operator Services – No confusion in the law – but why Mr. P Chidambaram’s army is so confused?<br>By: - Surender Gupta<br>Service Tax<br>Dated:- 3-11-2006<br><br>Why the show cause notices are being issued on the receiver of GTA services denying the benefit of abatement of 75%. Now a day's service tax department (central excise) is busy in issuing show cause notices to the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erson availing services of GTA and liable to pay service u/s 68(2) and availing the benefit of abatement equal to 75% under notification no. 34/2004. Let us have a look on the developments related to Service Tax on Goods Transport Operator Services:- 1 Service Tax on Goods Transport Agencies was introduced initially with effect from 16-11-1997 but was struck down by the Supreme Court as ultravi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res. 2 After removing the restriction in the statute, the Central Government has once again introduced the service tax on Goods Transport Operator Services with effect from 1-1-2005 by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004. 3 For this purpose, various notifications and instruction have been issued. (relevant provisions) 4 According to the provisions of Section 68(2) and Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, 1994, the liability of service tax shifts to the recipient of services (consignee or consignor) if they are among the specified persons. 5 On the other side, notification no. 32/2004 ST dated 3-12-2004 has been issued to exempt 75% (abatement) of the value of services where the goods transport operator does not avail the benefit of Cenvat Credit. (Now the notification no. 1/2006 ST dated 1-3-2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....006 - Sr. no .6) 6 Now, a pertinent question has been arisen that whether the specified persons (i.e. Consignor or consignee) are also eligible for availing the abatement of 75%. 7 Since there is no restriction in the notification and on the basis of principle of equality it was found that the specified persons are also eligible for such exemption. 8 On the contrary, the Director General of Ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice Tax (DGST) has issued an instruction dated 30-3-2005 to the service tax department for not allowing the benefit of 75% abatement to the specified person (i.e. consignor or consignee). 9 But, the DGST has found the above instruction wrong and has withdrawn the same vide its letter dated 4-11-2005. But such letter was not been circulated publicly, DGST has issued another letter dated 3-4-2006 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirming that the earlier instructions dated 30-3-2005 had been withdrawn. 10 Further, the TRU, in its letter F. No. B 1 /6 /2005 TRU dated 27-7-2005 - Paragraph no. 31, has confirmed that the benefit of abatement of 75% is available to the specified persons (consignee or consignors) From the above discussions, it is very much clear that the consignee or consigner who is liable to pay service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax on GTO services are eligible for abatement of 75% than why the officer of central excise department are so confused and continue to issue show cause notices to the persons availing benefit of 75%. Do you need any other example of harassment?<br> Scholarly articles for knowledge sharing by authors, experts, professionals ....