M/s. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Salem
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1230 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 4-1-2019
ST/41844/2014 – Final Order No. 40007/2019
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri P.C. Anand, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of denatured spirit and rectified spirit. They are registered under the category of transport of goods by road service. The appellant had paid service tax under GTA service for the period June 2009 to May 2010 in respect of the freight paid to M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. who has transported their finished goods. They later were of the opinion that no service tax has to be paid on the freight incurred by M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. as the transporter does not qualify as
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
l.
2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. consultant Shri P.C. Anand submitted that the period involved is June 2009 to May 2010. During the said period, the owner / transporters of trucks were not liable to pay service tax. M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. is a group company of the appellant. They are engaged in transportation of goods belonging to the appellant only. M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. is a truck owner / operator and not a Goods Transport Agency. In the Budget speech of 2004, the Finance Minister had clarified that there is no intention to levy service tax on truck owners or truck operators. Since M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. is not a GTA, they are not liable to pay service tax and the service tax paid by the appellant is made under mistake and therefore the appellant is eligible for refund. He relied upon the following case laws:-
a. Shreenath Mhaskkoba Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. – 2017 (3) GSTL 169 (Tri. Mum.)
b. Jaikumar Fulchand Ajmera – 2017 (48) STR 52 (Tri. Mum.)
3. The ld.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
both sides.
5. The main argument of the appellant is that M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. who has undertaken the transport of the goods of the appellant is not Goods Transport Agency and therefore the appellants are not liable to pay service tax as a service recipient. The ld. consultant has referred to the Budget Speech 2004 of the Finance Minister to argue that there was no intention to levy service tax upon individual truck owners. In the present case, M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. is a group company of the appellant which owns a fleet of tanker lorries. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of denatured spirit and rectified spirit and they have formed another company viz. M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. for transportation of their goods. The argument of the ld. consultant that the lorries / vehicles are owned by M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. and being truck owners they do not fall under GTA is without any substance. By Notification No.36/2004-ST dated 31.12.2004, the responsibility of d
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =