Activities where consignment notes have not been issued cannot be said to be covered under GTA services

An inquiry was, conducted on Taxpayer in connection with non-payment of service tax on membership donations related to activities relating to the advancement of yoga, on freight charges paid by the appellant, and on the amount by the appellant for hiring motor vehicles. Ultimately, a show-cause notice dated 06.04.2014 was issued to the appellant for the period January 2009 to March 2013 proposing demand of service tax with interest and penalty under the category of ‘club or association service’, ‘goods and transport agency service’ and ‘rent-a-cab operator service’.

Order of CESTAT:

15. The definition of ‘charitable activity in the Notification dated 20.06.2012 was amended to include activities relating advancement of yoga.

16. It is, therefore, clear that the twin conditions that the entity must be registered under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act and activities must be carried out by way of charitable activities stand satisfied.

17. The next issue that remains to be decided is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the freight amount paid by it on a reverse charge mechanism.

18. ‘Goods transport agency’ service has been defined in section 65(26) of the Finance Act to mean any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment notes, by whatever name called. In the present case, consignment notes have not been issued and so the activities cannot be said to be covered under ‘goods transport agency’ services.

19. In this connection it would be useful to refer to the decision of the Tribunal in Bhoramdeo Sahakari Shakhar Utpadam Karkhana vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Raipur, wherein it has been held that service tax can be levied only if consignment notes are issued.

20. Thus, service tax liability could not have been fastened on the appellant under the reserve charge mechanism.

21. It would, therefore, not be necessary to examine the other contentions raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant.

22. The order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Commissioner, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside and the appeal is allowed.

To Read Detailed Judgement Download PDF Given Below: