Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (4) TMI 762

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngalore, since common issues are involved, taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants were issued with show-cause notices, inter alia, demanding service tax of Rs.42,76,703/- and Rs.3,18,625/- on GTA service received by them during the period 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2010 with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demands have been confirmed. Hence, the present appeals. 3.1. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a Government company fully owned by Government of Karnataka. The activities of the appellant are governed as per Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission's guidelines for thei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....z Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II [2017(52) STR 314 (Tri. Del.)] iii. Sumangalam Suitings (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II [2010(19) STR 809 (Tri. Del.)] iv. R.K. Gupta Vs. CCE, Raipur [2018(6) TMI 1434-CSTAT, NEW DELHI] 3.2. Further, the learned advocate has submitted that the basic requirement for levy of service tax in the present case has not been satisfied inasmuch as no consignment note has been issued for transportation of the goods by the vendors to the appellant; hence confirmation of demand of service tax under GTA service is bad in law. In support, they have referred the following judgments:- i. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2017(47) STR 93 (Tri. Del.)] ii. Tata Power Company Ltd. V....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the goods at the warehouse / delivery point of the appellant. The definition of 'Goods Transport Agency' (GTA) as was in force during the relevant period reads as: Section 65(50b): "goods transport agency" means any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called; Rule 2(d) "person responsible for collecting the service tax" means - (i) in relation to a telephone connection - (a) the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs, referred to in clause (6) of section 3 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885); or (b) the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Delhi, a company registered under the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....include any individual "person" who is transporting some goods for another individual. We draw our support from the definition itself were the word 'agency' still continues. It clarifies that a person to render goods transport service should be an agency meant exclusively for providing goods transport service by whatever means and for the purpose, he should be issuing a consignment note. None of the criteria is met by the appellant in the present case. We are of the firm opinion that the order under challenge qua confirming GTA Service Tax liability is not sustainable. The argument of ld. DR that the charges of rate are shown separately in the invoice are of no relevance for the purpose in view of the apparent fact that the amount of money ....