2025 (10) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the financial year 2015-16 as received from the Income Tax Department and the comparison thereof with the ST-3 returns filed by the appellants, it was observed that appellant has short paid the service tax amounting to Rs. 1,52,918/-. The said amount was proposed to be recovered vide Show Cause Notice No. 16/2020-21/8286 dated 24.11.2020. The proposed demand was initially confirmed vide Order-in-Original bearing No. 35/2021-22 dated 31.03.2022. The appeal against the said order has been rejected vide Order-in-Appeal bearing No. 32/2023-24 dated 3.5.2023. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Ms. Priyanka Goel, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rohit Issar, learned Authorized Representative fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T-KOL; (iv) Chartered Logistics Limited Vs. CCE- (2024) 16 Centax 473 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 3.2 Finally, it is submitted that appellant was regularly filing the ST-3 returns. The department has issued the show cause notice in the year 2020 proposing the demand for the financial year 2015-16. Since there was no reason to invoke the extended period of limitation, the show cause notice gets hit by the principles of limitation. Confirmation of demand of such show cause notice is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions: (a) Vatsal Resources Ltd. Vs. CCE, Surat-I- 2023 (68) GSTL 279 (Tri.-Ahmd.); (b) Rajeshwar Prasad Choudhari Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise- (CESTAT Kolkata) of 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me. Though vide a letter dated 27.08.2021 it was submitted that the appellant is proprietor of M/s Sewa Roadways and was providing services as per Notification No. 15/2012 dated 17.3.2021 under Reverse Charge Mechanism and was alleged that the adjudicating authority has wrongly held that the appellant was engaged in providing GTA services. However, that the said submission has meticulously been dealt with by the adjudicating authorities below. Learned Departmental Representative further submitted that there is rather an apparent admission of the appellant that the income received in their hands is the commission income. Hence the tax has rightly been confirmed in terms of Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. With respect to the plea of lim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for said GTAs. 6. The appellant has impressed upon about the exemption in terms of Section 66D(p) of Finance Act. However, the said exemption is not available to the Goods Transport Agency [GTA]. Admittedly, the appellant was engaging another (GTA) for transporting goods for their clients instead of transporting on their own. This observation is sufficient to decline the benefit of Section 66D(p) of the Finance Act. Resultantly, the amount in the hand of the appellant is for rendering such an activity (BAS) which is nowhere mentioned in Section 66D of the Finance Act i.e. the activity was taxable in terms of Section 65B(44) of Finance Act with tax liability on the said amount. These observations are sufficient to hold that the demand ....