Arjun Chandra Barman Vs Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
In Arjun Chandra Barman vs Commissioner CGST and Central Excise CESTAT Kolkata, the appellant challenged an order confirming a service tax demand of ₹6,69,399 along with interest, penalties, and late fee. The demand was raised based on discrepancies between Income Tax Returns/Form 26AS and ST-3 returns for the financial year 2016–17. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the demand.
The appellant contended that he owned four trucks and provided transportation services in his individual capacity using his own vehicles, which are exempt under Entry (p) of the Negative List of Services under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. It was also argued that even if considered a Goods Transport Agency (GTA), the liability would fall on the service recipient under the reverse charge mechanism. The Revenue argued that no documentary evidence was provided to support the exemption claim.
The Tribunal observed that the demand was based solely on third-party data from Income Tax Returns/Form 26AS without corroborative evidence to establish taxable service. It held that such demands are not sustainable in law. On merits, it found that the appellant was not a GTA, as there was no evidence of issuance of consignment notes, and the services were rendered using own vehicles in an individual capacity. Accordingly, the activity fell within the exemption under the Negative List.
