Case Details: Startrek Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax GST, Bangalore North (2025) 31 Centax 363 (Tri.-Bang)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri P.A. Augustian, Member (J) & R. Bhagya Devi, Member (T)
- S/Shri Rishab Prasad, Onkar Sharma & Ms Tanvi Advs., for the Appellant.
- Shri Akshay Kumar, Superintendent, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant, engaged in procurement and movement of goods, had entered into contracts with individual truck owners and contractors for the transportation of goods by road. The Department of Revenue alleged that the services received constituted ‘Goods Transport Agency’ (GTA) services within the meaning of Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994 and that, under Section 65(105)(zzp) read with Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the Appellant was liable to discharge service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). The Appellant contended that the service providers did not issue any consignment notes, and that the contractual arrangement was for the transfer of right to use vehicles, not for availing transportation services as such. The Appellant further submitted that in the absence of a consignment note, a mandatory condition for classification as GTA service, the services rendered could not attract tax liability under RCM. The matter was accordingly placed before the CESTAT.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that to qualify as GTA service, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) the provider must provide service in relation to transport of goods by road, and (2) must issue a consignment note by whatever name called. It was observed that the consignment notes were issued by the Appellant and there was no evidence that any document issued by the service providers could be considered equivalent to a consignment note. The contract was for the transfer of right to use vehicles and not for providing transportation service. Accordingly, the service was held not classifiable as GTA service, and the service tax demand under Reverse Charge Mechanism was held to be unsustainable.
List of Cases Cited
- Birla Ready Mix v. Commissioner — 2013 (30) S.T.R. 99 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 2.2, 7]
- Chartered Logistics Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2024) 16 Centax 473 (Tri. – Ahmd.) — Referred [Para 2.3]
- Commissioner v. Chartered Logistics Ltd. — 2024 (388) E.L.T. 679 (S.C.) = (2024) 16 Centax 474 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Commissioner v. Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. — 2007 (213) E.L.T. 490 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3.1]
- Commissioner v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. — 2005 (179) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3.1]
- Commissioner v. Special Steel Ltd. — 2015 (329) E.L.T. 449 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3.1]
- Commissioner v. Special Steel Ltd. — 2016 (334) E.L.T. A123 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3.1]
- Commissioner v. Tenneco Rc India Pvt. Ltd. — 2015 (323) E.L.T. 299 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 3.2]
- Dinshaws Dairy Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 170 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]
- Lakshminarayana Mining Company v. Commissioner — 2019 (27) G.S.T.L. 745 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]
- M.L. Agro Products Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 94 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Paras 4, 6, 7]
- Narendra Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 354 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]
- NCR Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 6 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3.2]
- Nirlon Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (320) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3.2]
- Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd. Jahadue Rahim — AIR 1959 SC 24 — Relied on [Para 5]
