News Update

GST - Penalty demand of Rs.3731 crores - A person who would fall within the purview of sub-section (1-A) of s.122 should necessarily be a taxable person who retains the benefits of transactions: HCGST - Threatening and pressurising petitioner who is merely an employee - Highly unconscionable and disproportionate on the part of the officer: HCGST - Same relief was claimed in earlier petition which was withdrawn unconditionally - Fresh petition seeking same relief is barred by the estoppel principle: HCIncome tax hands over Rs 1700 Cr tax demand to Congress PartyGST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCStage-2 of Vikram-1 orbital rocket successfully test-firedGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCHouthis claim UK has not capability to intercept their hypersonic missilesGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCIsraeli forces kill 200 Palestinians at Gaza medical complex & arrest over 1000GST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerCus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTAT
 
ST - By no stretch of imagination can document issued by District Supply Officer conveying goods transported be construed as consignment note to render respondent as GTA: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, SEPT 29, 2016: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

The respondent had been retained by the District Supply Office, Osmanabad to move food grains and other goods in the operation of the public distribution system and received a sum of Rs. 11,97,78,894/- between January 2005 and August 2009 on which service tax of Rs. 34,82,611/- was confirmed as due from them as provider of 'goods transport agency' service.

In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals)held that individual truck owners are not providers of 'goods transport agency service' and relying on the decision in Kanaka Durga Oil Products Pvt. Ltd - 2009-TIOL-1123-CESTAT-BANG set aside the demand.

As mentioned, Revenue is in appeal before the CESTAT and submits that the cited Tribunal decision has been challenged in the Supreme Court. Revenue also contends that tax is leviable under section 65(105)(zzp) of FA, 1994 for providing of service by 'goods transport agency' which is defined in section 65(50b) and that with the recipient not being one of the entities listed in rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, it is the provider of the service who is the designated person liable to pay the tax.

The CESTAT, at the outset, observed -

+ Our decisions are binding on subordinate authorities and the existence of an appeal in which stay has not been obtained, not being an impediment, the first appellate authority has taken a course of action which cannot be faulted.

In the matter of the grounds taken in appeal, the Bench inter alia held -

++ Our decision in re Kanaka Durga Oil Product Ltd has excluded the individual truck owner from the purview of the tax in section 65(105)(zzp) of Finance Act, 1994. We have perused the definition of 'goods transport agency' in section 65(50b) of Finance Act, 1994 and find that an essential characteristic of provider of the service is the issuance of a consignment note. Revenue has resorted to a circular logic by claiming that rule 4B of Service Tax Rules, 1994 requires the goods transport agency to issue a consignment note. This, according to us, is a specious line of reasoning as the provider of 'goods transport agency' service being determined by issuance of consignment note under the statute, it is not within the ambit of a subordinate legislation to create the class of taxable persons by imposing a condition that would, perforce, bring such persons within the tax net. The intent and purpose of rule 4B has been misinterpreted by the reviewing authority.

++ The goods transported by the District Supply Officer are for a public service which involves a distribution chain. The distributors are mere designated outlets for the public distribution system and, till the transfer of title of the goods to the intended beneficiaries of the system, the goods are in the possession of the District Supply Officer; consequently, during the transportation stage, the respondent does not acquire any lien on the goods which is implicit in the issue of a consignment note. Therefore, no stretch of imagination can document issued by District Supply Officer conveying the goods transported be construed as a consignment note to render the respondent to be a 'goods transport agency'. The demand of tax therefore, fails.

In fine, the Revenue appeal was rejected.

(See 2016-TIOL-2566-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023