TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 799
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g huge amount from various persons/ companies / organisations. Though the tax at source has been deducted in terms of section 194C of Income Tax Act, 1962 but it was observed that the appellant was not paying the service tax. Based on said information an inquiry was initiated against the appellant. The appellant submitted the documents as were asked for, for the period for the financial year 2014-15 to June 2017. From the perusal of those documents, department observed that the appellant is engaged in transportation of goods and is providing services to various service recipients namely proprietors / individuals/ non registered entities. The department observed that during the period from October 2014 to June, 2017 the appellant has receive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... written submissions are considered as submissions of appellants on the impugned appeal. It has been mentioned in those submissions that there is no service tax liability on truck owner and truck operators. It is mentioned that the appellant is an individual truck/ vehicle owner and individual truck operators are not intended to be covered under the scope of levy of service tax under GTA services. With respect to the amount of Rs.2,73,29,176/- collected from Shri Surendra Singh Ranawat, proprietor of M/s. Priyanka Transport Co. and M/s. Yogeshwar Associates, and said amount of Rs. 2,71,729/- as received from Smt. Sashi Kunwar, proprietor of M/s. Bhgwati Logistics, it is mentioned therein that both the firms were registered under the service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rejected due to failure of the appellant to submit any documentary evidence. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order under challenge. The appeal is accordingly, prayed to be dismissed. 6. In view of the written submissions of the appellant and the rebuttal thereto by the learned Departmental Representative and after perusing the record of this appeal including the order of Adjudicating Authority below, I observe and hold as follows: The demand in the present case has been confirmed only on the ground that appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence to establish which truck/ vehicle was used for providing the taxable service. From the order under challenge paragraph 8 thereof, I observe that Commissioner (Appeals) him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant from both these GTA, were exempted from service tax liability. Entry No. 22 reads as follows:- " 22. Services by way of giving on hire (a) to a state transport undertaking, a motor vehicle meant to carry more than twelve passengers; or (b) to a goods transport agency, a means of transportation of goods;" The perusal also clarifies that once there is no dispute about the Shri Surendra Singh Ranawat, proprietor of M/s. Priynaka Transport Co. And Smt Sashi Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Bhagwati Logistics providing GTA services and truck to have been used by them, there remains no need for any documentary evidence to prove that trucks were given to the GTA for being used for transport of goods. Hence, I am of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom any service tax liability. Hence the demand confirmed with respect to the amount received against the truck on hire, is also held to not to be sustainable, as such, is liable to be set aside. 9. Order-in-Appeal No.1371/2018 dated 19.12.2018 as was passed in the case of M/s. Bhawani Roadways as was passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is also perused. The facts of the said case are same as that of the present case where the department itself has taken the decision that the exemption as per the Mega Notification of June, 2012 is very much available to the appellant. It is not the case of the transport agency but an individual owning several trucks and as such, is not covered under the scope of tax liability. 10. Finally, it is observed ....