Service Tax Can’t Be Demanded Under Supply of Tangible Goods as Transporting Ready-Mix Concrete Through Transit Mixers is a GTA Service | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

GTA Service Classification
Case Details: GUNESH LOGISTICS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR- (2025) 26 Centax 324 (Tri.-Del)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
  • Ms Poorvi Asati, Adv., for the Appellant.
  • Ms Jaya Kumari, Authorized Representative (DR), for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant was engaged in transporting Ready-Mix Concrete (RMC) using its own vehicles. It entered into agreements with customers to transport RMC and issued consignment notes for each trip, billing based on quantity and distance. The department issued show-cause notices alleging that the appellant was providing a supply of tangible goods service (specifically, transit mixers) and that the activity resembled vehicle leasing, for which service tax was due. The appellant argued that it was providing GTA services, not leasing vehicles or supplying tangible goods. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand for service tax, and the appellant’s appeals were dismissed. The appellant had previously received a favourable ruling for the period 2009-2013 in a case involving similar facts. The appellant then brought the issue before the Tribunal.

CESTAT Held

The Honourable Tribunal, after considering the facts and submissions, ruled in favour of the appellant. It observed that the appellant was engaged in the transportation of RMC using its own vehicles as per the work orders. The Tribunal clarified that the appellant’s activity was not the supply of tangible goods or vehicle leasing, but instead, it was correctly classified as a transportation service under the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) category. The earlier ruling in favour of the appellant for the period 2009-2013 was upheld, and the demand for service tax, along with penalties, was set aside.

List of Cases Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
Extended Limitation Denied Without Evasion Intent | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

May 6, 2025

No Interference Needed as Assessee Ignored SCN & Hearings | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

May 5, 2025

HC Quashes Penalty on Partner for Non-Service of SCN

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

May 2, 2025

No Service Tax on Freight and Insurance Recovered From Dealers | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 30, 2025

HC Sets Aside Ex-Parte Service Tax Order for Ignoring Assessee’s Contention

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 29, 2025

HC Condones 165-Day Delay in Filing Appeal Due to Counsel’s Lapse

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 29, 2025

Punjab and Haryana HC Upholds Disallowance of Cenvat Credit Depreciation

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 28, 2025

HC Rules Limitation u/s 11B Doesn’t Apply to Service Tax Refunds Paid by Mistake

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 28, 2025

Proceedings for Recovery of Interest Cannot Survive Once Tax Demand is Invalidated and a Refund is Ordered | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 16, 2025

Extended Period of Limitation Cannot Be Invoked as Assessee Had Bona Fide Belief That Service Tax Was Not Payable on Services

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

April 10, 2025