2026-VIL-1674-CESTAT-MUM-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Liability of a Goods Transport Agency to pay service tax where the consignment note is issued in favour of a service receiver not covered under the reverse charge notification - Appellant, engaged in providing GTA service, was found on scrutiny of ITR/TDS data to have a mismatch between taxable receipts reflected in income tax returns and 'nil' figures reflected in ST-3 returns, resulting in confirmation of service tax - Whether the appellant, having issued the consignment note in favour of a service receiver not falling within the class of persons liable to pay service tax under reverse charge in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Notification No. 26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, is itself liable to discharge the service tax on such service - HELD - The appellant issued the consignment note in favour of the recipient of taxable service, who does not fall under the purview of Rule 2(1)(d)(B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with the relevant Notification - The appellant is accordingly liable to pay service tax in respect of the taxable service provided to such recipient, and since the appellant did not discharge such liability, the demand was rightly confirmed - The contention that the SCN did not capture the facts of the case properly is not tenable, since the appellant had itself submitted the background facts, including that the recipients of service had discharged service tax liability either as consignor or consignee in respect of the substantial part of the demand – Further, since the appellant, though registered with the department, did not correctly capture the figures in its service tax returns, the department had no scope or occasion to ascertain the actual taxable service provided, and the show cause proceedings were initiated based on information subsequently submitted by the appellant. The show cause notice cannot be said to be barred by limitation of time – The matter is remanded to the original authority for the limited purpose of quantification of the abatement benefit, actually extendable to the appellant, if any - The appeal is disposed of

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page