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.
