TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Service Tax of Rs.6,69,399/- (inclusive of cess), along with interest and penalties, as confirmed in the Order-in-Original No. 16/ACD/ST/DB/2023-24 dated 15.09.2023, has been upheld. 2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of the information available in the Income Tax Returns / Form 26AS and the periodical ST-3 Returns filed by the appellant during the Financial Year 2016-17, a Show Cause Notice has been issued to the appellant on 21.10.2021 proposing to demand Service Tax amounting to Rs.6,69,399/- (inclusive of cess), along with applicable interest, penalties and late fee thereon. 3. During adjudication proceedings, the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise, Bongaigaon Division vide his Order-in-Origina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not liable to pay Service Tax for the services of transportation of goods as undertaken by them in the present case. 4.1. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submits that even if they are considered as a Goods Transport Agency (GTA), the liability to Service Tax lies on the recipients of service, being body corporates, under reverse charge mechanism, in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Accordingly, he contends that the impugned demand confirmed against them is legally unsustainable on this ground as well. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submits that the appellant has not furnished any evidence to substantiate their claim that they h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urns cannot be the sole basis for raising the demand. Thus, in the absence of any documentary evidence being adduced by the Revenue to substantiate their allegations for raising the present demand, I am of the view that the demand confirmed in this case cannot be legally sustained. 8. Regarding the merits of the case, I observe that it is a fact on record that the appellant owned four vehicles and undertook transportation service using his own vehicles. The said transportation service rendered by the appellant thus gets exempt from payment of Service Tax vide Entry No. (p) of the Negative List of Services as provided under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. For the sake of ready reference, the said Entry No. (p) of Section 66D of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose of taxation of services under the category of 'goods transport agency service'. The relevant paragraphs of the said Order are reproduced below: - "8. It is not the transportation of goods by road that is subject to tax but the services rendered by a goods transport agency in relation to the transportation of goods by road and road transport agency tasked with responsibilities that others connected with road transport are not, with consignment note being the point of difference. There is also no doubt that Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 lays down the contents of a consignment note. 9. Revenue relies upon the invoices or monthly bills raised by M/s. V.B. Enterprises. An invoice, notwithstanding adequacy of detail....