TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 576
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) confirmed various demands along with interest and penalties. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in providing Goods Transport Agency [GTA] services and registered under Service Tax since 17.12.2014. During the course of the Audit, the Department issued spot memos on the issue of non production of proper documents for claiming value based exemption of transportation under Sl. No. 21(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. In reply, the appellant submitted that they issue Goods receipt [GR] to the consignees and receive cash from them which they enter in the Cash Book as the number of GRs are voluminous, the same are disposed after receiving the cash. The Department also issued s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es provided by the appellant. He submitted that appellant had regularly shown the exemption claimed by them separately in the return which is confirmed in the show cause notice also. He submitted that transportation charges upto Rs. 750/- was accounted for their books of account and shown separately in their audited Profit & Loss Account every year. Learned counsel further submitted that the department had raised the demand based on ST-3 returns filed by the appellant. He contended that at the time of audit, the appellant could not produce 4 copies of Bilty, out of a total transactions of 46 in one month. He stated that vide notification no. 30/2012-ST dated 20-06-2012, the Government had shifted the tax liability of GTA Services under reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel stated that as most of the services provided by the appellant were either exempted or chargeable to tax under reverse charge, hence the charges for which demand was raised, was also exempt or chargeable to tax under RCM. Learned counsel contended that all the exemptions claimed were reported in service tax returns and accounted for in books by the appellant and reported in their audited Balance Sheet. As the demand was raised on the basis of ST-3 returns, hence, there was no suppression. Thus, extended period cannot be invoked. 4. Learned authorized representative for the department reiterated the submissions made in the impugned order. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the appellant's activities were squarely c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Court decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. M/s Dilip Kumar & Company & Ors.-[2018 (7) TMI 1826] holding that exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly, and the burden lies on the assessee to prove eligibility. Learned Authorized Representative stated that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that their services fall within the exemption parameters, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the revenue. He submitted that the appellant had deliberately suppressed material facts from the Department and the fact of non-payment of service tax would not have come to the notice of the Department had not been carried out. This contravention was detected only through audit, justifying invocation of the exten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed any documentary evidence viz. Consignment note/invoices etc. 7. As regards the requirement of issuing consignment note under Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the relevant rule is reproduced as below:- "Rule 4B Any Goods Transport Agency which provides service in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage shall issue a consignment note to the recipient of service Provided that where any taxable service in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage is wholly exempted under section 93 of the Act, the goods transport agency shall not be required to issue the consignment note." 8. From the above reproduction of Rule and the proviso, it is evident that any GTA providing th....