CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Form 26AS-Based Service Tax Demands on GTA Services

J. P. Logistics Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Allahabad)

Summary: The CESTAT Allahabad considered two Service Tax appeals concerning demands for April 2014 to March 2015 and April 2015 to June 2017. The Appellant was registered for Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services in the name of M/s. J.P. Logistics and provided Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services in the name of M/s. Trident Perishable Food Carriers, both having the same proprietor and PAN.

The Appellant charged and deposited Service Tax on Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services but did not charge Service Tax on GTA services under a bona fide belief that GTA services were covered under the reverse charge mechanism. The Department initiated proceedings primarily on the basis of third-party information received from the Income Tax Department and differences between receipts appearing in Form 26AS and turnover disclosed in ST-3 returns. Demands of Rs.17,60,474/- and Rs.98,72,561/- ultimately remained in dispute in the two appeals.

The first issue before the Tribunal was whether the Appellant could be denied GTA classification because it issued bills instead of documents specifically titled “consignment notes”. Referring to Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal held that the expression “by whatever name called” did not prescribe any particular nomenclature for a consignment note. It held that where bills contained the essential particulars and evidenced transportation of goods, they could qualify as consignment notes. TaxGuru’s discussion on Service Tax on Goods Transport Agency also explains the statutory role of a consignment note in GTA services.

The Tribunal also considered certificates issued by M/s. Mother Dairy Ltd., M/s. Vadilal Industries Ltd. and M/s. Vadilal Enterprises Ltd. certifying receipt of GTA services and payment of applicable Service Tax under reverse charge. It held that such certificates constituted cogent and reliable evidence supporting the Appellant’s claim that GTA services had been provided.

On the basis of demand, the Tribunal found that the proceedings had been initiated from Income Tax data and differences between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS without examination of the Appellant’s books of account. It followed the principle referred to in M/s Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad that Form 26AS was not a statutory document for determining taxable turnover under Service Tax. TaxGuru has similarly reported that a Service Tax demand based solely on Form 26AS data cannot be sustained without proper verification.

The Tribunal further held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the subsequent proceedings when relevant facts were already within the Department’s knowledge and the Appellant had regularly filed ST-3 returns. It also noted that the demand invoking the longer period was founded upon the Profit & Loss Account, Balance Sheet and Form 26AS furnished to the Income Tax authorities.

Accordingly, the CESTAT Allahabad set aside the impugned orders and allowed both appeals with consequential relief, as per law.

Service Tax Demands Against J.P. Logistics

M/s. J.P. Logistics (Prop: Manav Verma) filed Service Tax Appeal No.70251/2022 against Order-in-Appeal No.361/ST/Alld/2021 dated 02.12.2021 and Service Tax Appeal No.70831/2025 against Order-in-Appeal No.97/ST/Appl/Alld/2025 dated 26.06.2025.

The material particulars of the appeals were:

Particulars	ST/70251/2022	ST/70831/2025
Impugned Order	361/ST/Alld/2021 dated 02.12.2021	97/ST/Appl/Alld/2025 dated 26.06.2025
Show Cause Notice	24.10.2019	06.07.2021
Period of dispute	April 2014 to March 2015	April 2015 to June 2017
Service Tax demand	Rs.17,60,474/-	Rs.98,72,561/-

Since the Appellant and issues were common, the Tribunal disposed of both appeals by a common order.

Nature of Services Provided by the Appellant

The Appellant had taken Service Tax registration for “Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services” in the name of M/s. J.P. Logistics and was providing GTA services in the name of M/s. Trident Perishable Food Carriers, Proprietor: Shri Manav Verma, under the same PAN.

Service Tax was charged and deposited on Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services and ST-3 returns were filed. The Appellant’s case was that it did not charge Service Tax on GTA services because it believed that liability was governed by the reverse charge mechanism applicable to GTA services.

Form 26AS and ST-3 Differences Led to Demands

For F.Y. 2014-15, third-party information received from the Income Tax Department showed receipts of Rs.2,44,94,202/-, whereas the gross value disclosed in ST-3 returns was Rs.32,25,284/-. The difference was Rs.2,12,68,918/-, on which Service Tax of Rs.26,28,838/- was initially proposed.

For April 2015 to June 2017, Form 26AS reflected Rs.8,01,89,122/-, whereas ST-3 returns reflected Rs.77,74,187/-. The difference was Rs.7,24,14,935/-. After considering Service Tax already paid, the Department proposed a further liability of Rs.98,72,561/-.

The Appellant contested the demands on the ground that Service Tax liability could not be determined merely by adopting values appearing in Form 26AS without examining the nature of individual receipts and the books of account.

Orders of Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities

The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands for the respective periods and also imposed penalties under Sections 78, 77(1)(a) and 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994. A further penalty of Rs.87,000/- under Section 70 was imposed for the alleged failure to comply with statutory filing requirements.

For F.Y. 2014-15, the Commissioner (Appeals) examined the agreement with M/s. Mother Dairy and accepted that the services rendered under that agreement were classifiable as GTA services. However, the same treatment was not extended to services provided to M/s. Vadilal, resulting in reduction of the Service Tax demand from Rs.26,28,838/- to Rs.17,60,474/-.

The separate appeal relating to April 2015 to June 2017 was rejected by Order-in-Appeal dated 26.06.2025.

Appellant’s Submissions Before CESTAT

The Appellant submitted that Service Tax liability had been duly discharged on Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services and ST-3 returns had regularly been filed.

It was contended that GTA services were not subjected to Service Tax in the Appellant’s hands because of its bona fide belief regarding reverse charge.

Agreements with Vadilal and Mother Dairy

In relation to M/s. Vadilal, the Appellant relied upon Clause 10 of the agreement, under which vehicle capacity was determined on the basis of Vadilal Big Tray and the per-kilometre rate varied according to tray capacity. It was submitted that this demonstrated that transportation of goods was the essential nature of the service.

For M/s. Mother Dairy Ltd., the Appellant relied upon contractual provisions dealing with taxes and duties and payment of bills supported by goods receipts, stock transfer orders, invoices, gate passes, temperature and quality details, data logger reports and other documents.

Certificates from Service Recipients

The Appellant relied upon certificates from M/s. Mother Dairy Ltd., M/s. Vadilal Industries Ltd. and M/s. Vadilal Enterprises Ltd. stating that they had received GTA services and discharged applicable Service Tax under reverse charge.

Challenge to Third-Party Data

The Appellant contended that the proceedings had been initiated solely on the basis of third-party information received from the Income Tax Department without independent examination of books of account, invoices or the nature of the underlying transactions.

Reliance was placed on M/s A.P. Construction & Suppliers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Noida 2026 (2) TMI 527-CESTAT Allahabad and M/s Mamta Advertisers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow 2025 (7) TMI 1143 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD.

Whether Bills Could Qualify as Consignment Notes

The Tribunal identified the first issue as whether GTA classification could be denied merely because the Appellant issued bills rather than documents expressly titled “consignment notes”.

Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994 defined “Goods Transport Agency” as a person who provides services in relation to transport of goods by road and issues a consignment note “by whatever name called”.

The Tribunal observed that no particular format or nomenclature was prescribed. The relevant consideration was the substance and contents of the document evidencing transportation.

TaxGuru’s detailed guide on GTA and the requirement of a consignment note discusses the same statutory expression “by whatever name called” and the particulars ordinarily contained in such a document.

The Tribunal held that if the bills issued by the Appellant contained the essential particulars of a consignment note and acknowledged transportation of goods, they could be treated as consignment notes within Section 65(50b).

Certificates Accepted as Evidence of GTA Services

The Tribunal found that the service recipients had issued certificates categorically confirming receipt of GTA services from the Appellant and payment of applicable Service Tax under reverse charge.

It treated those certificates as cogent and reliable evidence.

The Tribunal referred to M/s. Airvision India Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, Final Order No. ST/A/70406/2018-CU[DB] dated 13.02.2018, where a certificate issued in relation to GTA services on the service provider’s letterhead was treated as sufficient and a separate certificate on each consignment note was not considered necessary.

Consignment Note Need Not Carry a Particular Title

The Tribunal also relied upon L. Agro Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. & S.T., Guntur 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 94.

That decision referred to the statutory phrase “by whatever name called” and recognised that a consignment note could take different forms.

The Tribunal also referred to U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. CCE, Meerut-II [2011 (24) S.T.R. 423 (Tri.-Del.)], where documents accompanying goods and identifying the consignor, consignee and route of transportation were considered in determining whether the requirement of a consignment note had been met.

The Tribunal accordingly held that the benefit of GTA classification could not be denied merely because the documents issued by the Appellant were described as bills rather than consignment notes.

Form 26AS Alone Could Not Determine Service Tax Turnover

The Tribunal found that the entire demand originated from third-party information received from the Income Tax Department and differences between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS.

It specifically noted that the demand had been raised without examination of the books of account.

The Tribunal referred to M/s Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 345 (Tri-All), under which Form 26AS maintained by the Income Tax Department was not regarded as a statutory document for determination of taxable turnover for Service Tax because the basis of Form 26AS and Service Tax liability differed.

TaxGuru has likewise reported a CESTAT Allahabad ruling where a Service Tax demand was set aside because the authorities relied solely on Form 26AS data.

The Tribunal therefore held that confirmation of Service Tax merely on the basis of payments reflected against service recipients was not sustainable.

Extended Period Could Not Be Invoked Repeatedly

The Tribunal next considered limitation.

It noted that the Appellant had regularly filed ST-3 returns and had been issued show cause notices consecutively for the relevant periods.

According to the Tribunal, all necessary information was already available to the Department when the first show cause notice was issued. The Department should therefore have issued the subsequent notice within the normal limitation period.

Once the relevant facts were already within the knowledge of the Department, the same or similar facts could not again be characterised as suppression for invoking the extended period.

The Tribunal also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not dealt with the limitation issue and that the appellate order was silent on it.

Reliance on Profit & Loss Account and Form 26AS

The Tribunal further observed that invocation of the extended period was founded upon the Profit & Loss Account, Balance Sheet and Form 26AS furnished to the Income Tax authorities.

It referred to M/s Firm Foundation and Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (Mad) pronounced on 06.04.2018 in Writ Petition No.21799 of 2017/[2018 (16) G.S.T.L. 209 (Mad.)] and M/s Sigma Trade Wings vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, Final Order No.70049 of 2019 dated 07.01.2019.

As recorded in the order, those decisions held that reliance upon Profit & Loss Account and Form 26AS was not sufficient for confirmation of tax in the circumstances considered therein.

The Tribunal accordingly held that the impugned orders were unsustainable on limitation as well.

Final Decision

The CESTAT Allahabad set aside the impugned orders.

Both appeals filed by the Appellant were allowed with consequential relief, as per law.

The order was pronounced in open court on 12.08.2026.

Cases Discussed

• M/s A.P. Construction & Suppliers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Noida 2026 (2) TMI 527-CESTAT Allahabad; (Being Service Tax Appeal No.70624 of 2025 in Final Order No.70002/2026 dated 07.01.2026).
• M/s Mamta Advertisers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow 2025 (7) TMI 1143 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD; (Being Service Tax Appeal No.70214 of 2024 in Final Order No.70499/2025 dated 18.07.2025).
• M/s Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 345 (Tri-All)
• M/s. Airvision India Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, Final Order No. ST/A/70406/2018-CU[DB] dated 13.02.2018
• M/s Firm Foundation and Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (Mad) pronounced on 06.04.2018 in Writ Petition No.21799 of 2017/[2018 (16) G.S.T.L. 209 (Mad.)]
• M/s Sigma Trade Wings vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, Final Order No.70049 of 2019 dated 07.01.2019
• L. Agro Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. & S.T., Guntur 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 94
• South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur [2016 (41) S.T.R. 636 (Tri.-Del.)]
• U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. CCE, Meerut-II [2011 (24) S.T.R. 423 (Tri.-Del.)]

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT ALLAHABAD ORDER

M/s. J.P. Logistics (Prop: Manav Verma), has filed Service Tax Appeal No.70251/2022 for setting aside the Order-in Appeal No.361/ST/Alld/2021 dated 02.12.2021 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Service Tax, Allahabad by which the appeal was partly allowed and remaining demand of Service Tax has been confirmed under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest and penalty. Service Tax Appeal No.70831/2025 has been filed by the Appellant to assail the same in Order-in-Appeal No.97/ST/Appl/Alld/2025 dated 26.06.2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeal), CGST & Service Tax, Allahabad by which the appeal was rejected and the demand of Service Tax has been confirmed under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest and penalty.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT ALLAHABAD ORDER

M/s. J.P. Logistics (Prop: Manav Verma), has filed Service Tax Appeal No.70251/2022 for setting aside the Order-in Appeal No.361/ST/Alld/2021 dated 02.12.2021 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Service Tax, Allahabad by which the appeal was partly allowed and remaining demand of Service Tax has been confirmed under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest and penalty. Service Tax Appeal No.70831/2025 has been filed by the Appellant to assail the same in Order-in-Appeal No.97/ST/Appl/Alld/2025 dated 26.06.2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeal), CGST & Service Tax, Allahabad by which the appeal was rejected and the demand of Service Tax has been confirmed under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest and penalty. The details of the two Service Tax Appeals are as follows:-

Appeal No.	ST/70251/2022	ST/70831/2025
Impugned Order No. & Date	361/ST/Alld/2021 Dt:02.12.2021	97/ST/Appl/Alld/2025 Dt:26.06.2025
Show Cause Notice Date	24.10.2019	06.07.2021
Period of dispute	April,2014 to March, 2015	April,2015 to June,2017
Service Tax Demand	Rs.17,60,474/-	Rs.98,72,561/-

2. As the Appellant is common in both the appeals and the issues involved are identical, it is considered appropriate to dispose of both the appeals by this common order.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant had taken Service Tax registration as a service provider for “Clearing and forwarding Agent Services” in the name of “M/s. J.P. Logistics” and providing GTA services in the name of “M/s. Trident Perishable Food Carriers” Proprietor : Shri Manav Verma with the same PAN. The Service Tax Registration of Appellant is AAJPV5363NSD002.

4. Since “Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services” are taxable so the Appellant charged Service Tax from the service receiver and deposited to the revenue and filed ST-3 Returns on time and the Appellant was under the bona fide belief that the GTA service comes under reverse charge so the Appellant never charged any Service Tax from the service receiver nor deposited to the revenue. On the basis of third-party data received from the Income Tax Department, under the data sharing protocol, showing the receipts of Rs.2,44,94,202/- and in ST-3 the value was shown at Rs.32,25,284/-. The difference in value shown is Rs.2,12,68,918/- for the period F.Y 2014-15 . On the aforesaid facts the Show Cause Notice¹ dated 24.10.2019 was issued proposing to demand Service Tax as under:-

Financial Year	Total amount Paid/credi ted as per 26AS	Gross value as per ST-3 Return s	Differenc e value	S.Tax Payabl e @12.36 %	Party is liable to pay S.T. on differen tial amount
2014-15	2,44,94,202	32,25,284	2,12,68,918	26,28,838	26,28,838

5. Thereafter, the Department issued a subsequent SCN dated 06.07.2021 covering the period from April, 2015 to June, 2017, proposing the following demand of Service Tax as under:-

Financial Year	Total amount Paid/credited as per 26AS	Gross value as per ST-3 Return s	Difference value	S.Tax already paid by the party	Party is liable to pay S.T. on differential amount
April,15 to June, 2017	8,01,89,122	77,74,187	7,24,14,935	18,39,101	98,72,561

6.The Appellant contested the allegations contained in the SCN by filing its reply, contending, inter alia, that demand of Service Tax on the basis of the values taken directly from the Form-26AS Statement was not justified in law.

7. The aforesaid submissions, however, were not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority. Consequently, for the period 2014– 15, vide Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2021, and for the period from April, 2015 to June, 2017, vide Order-in-Original dated 29.02.2024, the demands proposed in the respective SCNs were confirmed. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed a penalty equal to the Service Tax demand under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, along with penalties under Sections 77(1)(a) and 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, a penalty of Rs.87,000/- under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 was also imposed for the alleged failure to comply with the statutory filing requirements.

8. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal dated 02.12.2021 for the financial year 2014–15, partly allowed the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals), upon examining the Agreement entered into with M/s. Mother Dairy, held that the services rendered by the Appellant thereunder were classifiable as Goods Transport Agency² However, the Commissioner (Appeals) declined to extend the same finding to the services provided to M/s. Vadilal, holding that such services did not fall within the ambit of GTA Services. Consequently, the Service Tax demand was reduced from Rs.26,28,838/- to Rs.17,60,474/-.

9. The other appeal for the period April, 2015 to June, 2017 was rejected vide Order-in-Appeal dated 26.06.2025, without granting any relief to the Appellant. The Appellant is therefore before us by way of these two appeals.

10. Sri Kartikeya Narain, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the Appellant had duly discharged the Service Tax liability on all its taxable services, namely, Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services, and had regularly filed the prescribed ST-3 Returns. He further submitted that the Appellant was under a bona fide belief that the services provided as a GTA were covered under the reverse charge mechanism. Accordingly, the Appellant neither collected Service Tax from the Service Recipients nor deposited the same with the Revenue.

11. Learned Counsel further invited our attention to the Agreement executed with M/s. Vadilal. Referring to Annexure-A, Clause 10 of the Agreement, he submitted that it specifically provides: “Company will consider vehicle capacity on the basis of Vadilal Big Tray and the per kilometre rate shall vary on the basis of tray capacity.” According to him, the said clause clearly establishes that the consideration under the agreement was not determined solely on the basis of the Kilometre, but was also dependent upon the carrying capacity of the vehicle, thereby evidencing that the transportation of goods was the essential nature of the service.

12. Learned Counsel further invited our attention to the Agreement executed with M/s. Mother Dairy Ltd. Referring to point No.13, which says that “The taxes, levies and other duties payable by the transporter (excluding service tax) under the law shall be borne by the transporter only.” And point No.3.5 relates to payment of bills. In this point it’s clearly mentioned that bills are supported by goods receipt/stock transfer orders/Invoice/gate pass indicating temperature and quality of goods at the time of receipt/date logger reports or any other documents asked by the company from time to time. From this point the learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal dated 02.12.2021, accepted as GTA service provided by the Appellant.

13. He further submitted that Certificates issued by M/s. Mother Dairy Ltd., M/s. Vadilal Industries Ltd. and M/s. Vadilal Enterprises Ltd. categorically certify that they had received GTA services from the Appellant and had discharged the applicable Service Tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism³. These certificates were also placed on record before the lower Authorities; however, the same were not properly appreciated while passing the impugned orders.

14. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the entire proceedings have been initiated solely on the basis of third-party information received from the Income Tax Department. No independent verification of Books of Accounts, invoices or nature of transactions was conducted by the Department before alleging tax liability. Demand arises merely on presumptions, assumptions and Income Tax data and is thus, legally unsustainable. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: –

a. M/s A.P. Construction & Suppliers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Noida 2026 (2) TMI 527-CESTAT Allahabad; (Being Service Tax Appeal No.70624 of 2025 in Final Order No.70002/2026 dated 07.01.2026).

b. M/s Mamta Advertisers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow 2025 (7) TMI 1143 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD; (Being Service Tax Appeal No.70214 of 2024 in Final Order No.70499/2025 dated 18.07.2025).

15. Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed that the appeal filed by the Appellant, being devoid of any merits, may be dismissed.

16. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records.

17. Having considered the rival submissions and upon careful perusal of the records available before us, we find that the first issue requiring determination is whether the Appellant, by issuing bills instead of consignment notes, can be denied the benefit of classification of the services rendered as GTA Services. Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994 defines “Goods Transport Agency” as under:-

“Goods Transport Agency” means any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues a consignment note, by whatever name called.”

A plain reading of the above definition shows that the statute does not prescribe any particular format or nomenclature for a consignment note. The expression “by whatever name called” makes it abundantly clear that the document issued by the service provider need not necessarily be titled as a “consignment note.” What is material is the substance and contents of the document evidencing the transportation of goods. Therefore, merely because the Appellant issued bills instead of documents specifically titled as “consignment notes,” the services rendered cannot be denied classification as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Services. If the bills issued by the Appellant contain the essential particulars of a consignment note and acknowledge the transportation of goods, such bills are liable to be treated as consignment notes within the meaning of Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994.

18. We further find that the service recipients have issued certificates categorically certifying that they had received GTA Services from the Appellant during the relevant period and had discharged the applicable Service Tax under the RCM. In our considered view, such certificates constitute cogent and reliable evidence to establish that the Appellant had indeed provided GTA Services during the relevant period. The issue is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in M/s. Airvision India Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, Final Order No. ST/A/70406/2018-CU[DB] dated 13.02.2018, wherein it was held that:-

“Certificate given for GTA on its letterhead is sufficient and a certificate on each consignment note is not required.”

19. We note that it was held by this Tribunal in the case of L. Agro Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. & S.T., Guntur 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 94 wherein it was held as under:-

“6.3 After hearing both sides, it appears that the main plea of the assessees on this issue is that no consignment notes have been raised. They have relied upon the ratio in the case of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur [2016 (41) S.T.R. 636 (Tri.-Del.)] where issue of consignment note has been held as a non-derogable ingredient for falling under GTA. But the fact remains that consignment notes can be issued in any form, as seen from definition of GTA in Section 65(50)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994; “goods transport agency” means any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods and issues consignment note, by whatever name called (emphasis added). In the Appeal No. ST/341/2011, sample vouchers/invoices have been made available, where the truck number, amount and load have been described. In the instant cases, the assessees are the service recipients for which they are paying the freight charges. When it is so, then we are of the view that the Department has rightly applied GTA and demanded the service tax for the reason that without an accompanying paper/document, goods cannot be received without which is the basis of amount for payment. This is also the view taken by the Tribunal in U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. CCE, Meerut-II [2011 (24) S.T.R. 423 (Tri.-Del.), it would be worthy of reproducing relevant portion of the Tribunal’s finding herein below :

“4. Ld. DR on the other hand, supports the order of the authorities below. When we find that the first Appellate Authority appears to have rightly understood the matter in controversy, there is no quarrel on the consignment note to give any interim relief to the appellant. Consignment note may not necessarily be in any format since no such format is prescribed under law but the documents accompanying the goods identifying the consignor and consignee, route of consignment enable to construe what a consignment note is and the appellant’s grievance that the consignment note was mandatory does not find support of law when fact and circumstances demonstrate route of goods moved disclosing identity of consignor and consignee and goods consigned.”

Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the orders where service tax has been demanded under GTA. The same is sustained. On this point, the concerned appeals are dismissed.”

20. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present case, we hold that the certificates issued by the service recipients are sufficient to establish that the Appellant had rendered GTA Services during the relevant period. Consequently, the denial of the benefit merely on the ground that the Appellant had issued bills instead of documents titled as consignment notes is unsustainable.

21. We now proceed to take up the issue of limitation raised by the Appellant. We find that the entire demand has been initiated on the basis of third-party information received from the Income Tax Department and the entire demand is based on difference in ST-3 Return and Form-26AS and that the demand is raised without examination of the Books of Accounts and therefore, the said demand is bad in law. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 345 (Tri-All) that Form-26AS maintained by the Income Tax Department is not a statutory document for determining taxable turnover for service tax purposes in as much as the entire basis of form 26AS and service tax payment are different. Accordingly, the impugned order confirming service tax demand on the basis of payment released by the service recipients is bad in law and the same is not sustainable. Further, We find that the Appellant has been regularly filing the ST-3 returns and was issued the SCNs consecutively for the year 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 (till June, 2017).We also find that all the necessary information were available to the Department on the basis of which first SCN was issued, and the Department should have issued the subsequent SCN for the normal period and thus a subsequent SCN invoking the extended period of limitation alleging suppression of facts is not sustainable. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not addressed this issue of limitation in his order and it is totally silent on limitation. We also find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Courts and the Tribunal have already examined this issue time and again and held that allegation of suppression of facts against the assessee could not be sustained if all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the Department. We also find that the Appellant was regularly filing ST-3 returns and therefore while issuing second SCN, the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the Appellant as these facts were already in the knowledge of the Authority.

22. In view of the above discussions, it is evident that there would be no suppression of facts on the part of assessee if the facts were already in the knowledge of the Department when the first SCN was issued. We find that the demand raised by invoking the longer period of limitation is solely based upon the Profit & Loss Account, Balance Sheet and Form-26AS submitted with the Income Tax Authorities which has consistently been held to be as not proper by the Tribunal in various decisions. Reference stands made to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Firm Foundation and Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (Mad) pronounced on 06.04.2018 in Writ Petition No.21799 of 2017/ [2018 (16) G.S.T.L. 209 (Mad.)], as also to the Tribunal’s decision in the case of M/s Sigma Trade Wings vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, Final Order No.70049 of 2019 dated 07.01.2019. It stands held in both the above decisions that the Revenue’s reliance upon Profit & Loss Account and Form-26As are irrelevant for the purpose of confirmation of tax. Inasmuch as, the Revenue’s entire case is based upon the Profit & Loss Accounts and Balance Sheet and the Service Tax stands confirmed by invoking the longer period of limitation. It is our considered view that the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable on limitation itself.

23. In view of the above findings, the impugned orders are set aside. Both the appeals filed by the Appellant are allowed with consequential relief, as per law.

(Order pronounced in open court on – 12.08.2026)

Notes:

¹ SCN

² GTA

³ RCM