Vinoth Shipping Services Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
In this case, the Tribunal examined whether the appellant, engaged in steamer agency, port, and logistics services at Tuticorin Port, was liable to pay service tax under the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12. The Department alleged that the appellant arranged transportation of cargo for M/s. Aspinwall & Co. Pvt. Ltd., paid freight charges, and therefore became the person liable to pay freight under Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Based on this allegation, service tax demand of ₹90,26,819 along with interest and penalties was confirmed.
The appellant contended that it functioned only as a contractor/sub-agent of Aspinwall, which received work from customers, issued consignment notes, billed transportation charges, and discharged service tax on the transportation component. The appellant argued that it neither acted as an independent GTA nor as a consignor or consignee and that service tax had already been paid by Aspinwall on the same transportation activity. The appellant also submitted that the Department had been aware of the contractual arrangement since 2008 and had previously initiated proceedings concerning the same arrangement.
After examining the agreement, Form 16A certificates, reimbursement statements, vehicle records, weighbridge slips, freight receipts, ST-3 returns, tax challans, and other documents, the Tribunal found that the appellant merely arranged vehicles and coordinated cargo movement on behalf of Aspinwall. The records showed that Aspinwall remained the principal contractor, dealt directly with customers, issued consignment notes, billed transportation charges, and discharged service tax on the gross amounts collected. The Tribunal observed that the appellant did not independently deal with customers, issue consignment notes, or undertake transportation obligations in its own name.
