TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable services under Clearing and Forwarding Agency Service, Cargo Handling Service, Business Auxiliary Service and Goods Transport Agency Service. On verification of accounts, the department alleged short-payment of service tax under three heads, namely: (i) nonpayment of service tax on reimbursable expenses; (ii) non-payment of service tax on GTA service under reverse charge; and (iii) irregular availment of exemption in respect of services provided to SEZ units. A show cause notice was issued and, after adjudication, the original authority confirmed demands aggregating to Rs. 71,925/-, appropriated amounts already paid, and imposed penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... B. As regards GTA the amount of Rs. 3,66,448/- paid to M/s. SSK Transport represented vehicle hire charges and not freight for transportation by a goods transport agency. Further Service Tax under GTA can arise only where the service provider issues a consignment note. In the absence of any evidence of issuance of consignment notes, the demand cannot survive. Reliance was placed on Bothra Shipping Services Vs CCE & ST, Visakhapatnam, wherein it was held that absence of consignment note is fatal to a GTA demand. C. As regards the demand relating to services rendered to SEZ units, the appellant submitted that, for the period up to 13.03.2009, service tax along with interest and penalty had already been paid upon being pointed out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usion of reimbursable expenses in the taxable value. The period involved is December 2008 to December 2009. It is no longer res integra that, for the period prior to amendment of Section 67 with effect from 14.05.2015, reimbursable expenditure could not be included in the gross value of taxable services merely by virtue of Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. In Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India [2012 (12) TMI 150 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Delhi High Court held that Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules was ultra vires Sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, since reimbursed expenses cannot be treated as the "gross amount charged" for the service. The Court therefore held that service tax was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Hyderabad, in the case of M/s Bothra Shipping Services Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam, vide Final Order No. A/30362/2025 dated 11.09.2025, held that the issue is no longer resintegra that when there is no issuance of consignment note, there cannot be a GTA service and therefore, no demand can be made from either consignor or consignee. However, if GTA service has been provided, then they are liable to pay Service Tax. Therefore, it is already settled that when there is no issue of consignment note no demand can be raised. Hence in the absence of the department relying on a consignment note, the demand in this case merits to be set aside Service provided to SEZ 8. The third issue relates to demand of R....