2026-VIL-1135-CESTAT-AHM-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Classification of composite cargo handling and transportation services, Liability to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism - Whether a composite cargo handling service contract that includes transportation as an ancillary activity can be vivisected into separate goods transport agency service and cargo handling service to impose service tax liability on the service recipient under RCM - HELD - Revenue cannot split cargo handling services into transport services and other services by vivisecting a composite contract entered between service provider and service recipient. The definition of goods transport agency service under Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994 mandatorily requires that the service provider issues a consignment note - In the present case, the contractors issued only consolidated monthly invoices without any consignment note, which is a mandatory requirement for classification of service as goods transport agency service. When transportation is an ancillary or integral component of a composite cargo handling service contract, it cannot be separated and classified as a distinct GTA service. The agreement between the parties explicitly stated that the service was for cargo handling, and the service recipients were ultimately billed for the entire transaction as cargo handling services. No consignment note being issued, the service cannot be classified under GTA service category - The service tax demands confirmed by the lower authority are set aside and the appeal is allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page