TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 236
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses. They availed the services of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) for transportation of sugar cane, gunny bales, machinery parts, urea, sulphur etc. Appellant is a consignee covered under the seven categories of persons specified under rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and is liable to pay service tax on GTA services but not taken the service tax registration. During verification of financial accounts of the appellant for the period 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2006 it was noticed that they have incurred towards transportation of sugar cane to the factory and have also incurred freight charges of procurement of other inputs and they had not paid service tax on the GTA services u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r reverse charge mechanism on the GTA services availed by the appellant. Ld. Counsel for the appellant did not appear but sent a letter requesting that the matter may be decided on merits considering the written submissions. 3. Ld. DR submits that Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE Salem vs. Suibramania Siva Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited [2014(35)S.T.R 500 (Mad.)] has categorically held that the definition of Goods Transport Agency includes every person engaged in an activity providing service of the transport of goods by road and held that any commercial or proprietary concern carrying on the business of goods transport would fall within the definition. Therefore, the ratio of the order of the Tribunal in the case of CCE&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax because they availed the services of individual truck owners and not Goods Transport Agency. In the case of Kanaka Durga Agro Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has held that the goods transport agency must be an agency which issues consignment notes and since individual truck owners not issuing consignment notes, they cannot be called as Goods Transport Agencies. Ld. DR relied on the case of Suibramania Siva Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited (supra) in which Hon'ble High Court of Madras held that even the individual truck owners can be treated as goods transport agencies. The relevant portion of the judgment in paras 11, 12, 17 & 18 are reproduced below: "11. We do not agree wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by road. Thus, any commercial or a proprietary concern carrying on the business of Good Transport would fall under the definition of "Goods Transport, Agency" in Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act. In the absence of any words of restriction, the definition 'any person' thus would have application to any concern providing the service." 5. We find that the entire discussion in this case was on whether the individual truck owner as opposed to a commercial concern is also covered under the definition of "Goods Transport Agency". The Hon'ble High Court of Madras has held that an individual truck owner is also covered. The issue of whether the consignment notes were issued or not, was not discussed in the case and was apparently not in disput....