Case Law Details
Grand Polycoats Co Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Introduction: The dispute between Grand Polycoats Co Pvt Ltd and the Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) revolves around the service tax liability imposed on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service. The appellant claims the service tax was paid by the service provider (GTA), and the case has been sent for a second round of adjudication to verify this claim.
Analysis:
1. Previous Litigation: The tribunal had previously remanded the matter, directing the Adjudicating Authority to verify certificates obtained from transporters about the payment of service tax.
2. Submission of Documents: The appellant produced all the necessary documents, including Chartered Accountant certificates, to prove that the tax was paid by the transporters. Despite this, the Commissioner (Appeals) stated that no documents were submitted.
3. Remand for Re-adjudication: After careful examination, the tribunal observed a prima facie view that the service tax seems to have been paid by the transporter. However, there was no concrete evidence of payment to the government exchequer. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for proper verification.
Conclusion: The case highlights the importance of due process and thorough examination of documents in tax liability cases. The appellant’s assertion that the service tax was paid by the transporters was not adequately verified initially, leading to the need for re-adjudication. The tribunal’s decision to remand the case emphasizes the need for fairness and transparency in legal proceedings and reflects a pursuit for justice in the taxation domain.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
The issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on Goods Transport Agency service when they claimed that service tax on the same service was paid by the service provider i.e. GTA.
2. Shri Mrugesh G. Pandya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset submits that this is second round of litigation before this Tribunal. In the first round, Tribunal had remanded the matter with directions to the Adjudicating Authority to verify the certificates obtained from the transporters regarding payment of service tax by transporters. He submits that all the documents were produced before the Adjudicating Authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) however despite this fact, learned Commissioner (Appeals) stated that no documents were submitted. It is his submission that as per Chartered Accountant certificates, it is clear that service tax was paid by the transporters, therefore the demand is not sustainable.
3. Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, learned Superintendent (AR) reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of record, I find that this is a second round of appeal before this Tribunal. On the earlier round, the Tribunal vide order dated 26.12.2011 remanded the matter by giving following observations:-
“3. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding liability to pay service tax on the Goods Transport Agency services received by the Appellant. Learned counsel brings to our notice the invoices issued by the transport agencies and draws our attention to the column that transport agencies have clearly indicated in the invoices that service tax liability has been discharged by them. It is his submission that they have paid the amount of service tax liability to the transporters and the same amount cannot be recovered from them. He draws our attention to the annexure “H” attached to the appeal memorandum and submits that all the transporters have given certificates, which indicates that the amount paid by the Appellant as service tax has been deposited. At the same time, he fairly agrees that these certificates were not produced before the adjudicating authority in order to come to a proper conclusion.
We find that the adjudication authority needs to be given a chance to consider these certificates which indicate that the service tax liability on the service received by the Appellant for GTA services have been discharged by the someone. As the certificates are produced for the first time before us, in the interest of justice, we deem fit to set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority.”
As per the above observations of the Tribunal it is clear that appellant was suppose to submit documents showing discharging payment of service tax by the transporter. From the appeal memo before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) it was pointed out by the learned Counsel that documents such as Chartered Accountant certificate, bill of transporters were produced before Commissioner (Appeals) however he has ignored the same and stated that no documents were produced.
5. From the perusal of the said documents, I am of prima-facie, view that service tax appears to have been paid by the transporter. However, at the same time no evidence of payment of service tax by the transporter to the government exchequer was produced. On the basis of documents produced by the appellant it appears that service provider i.e. transporters have discharged the service tax. On this basis, demand of service tax, prima-facie, not sustainable against the appellant. However, on the basis of details submitted before me, the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) can verify the fact of payment of service tax from the jurisdictional officer of transporter. Accordingly, I set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter only after confirmation from the jurisdictional officer of the transporters that the service tax for the service received by the appellant has been paid by the transporters.
6. Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority.
(Pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2023)
