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Your email address will not be published.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
FA 2010 Service Tax Levy on Construction Upheld | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

Tobacco Products Assessable Under Section 4, Not 4A | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

Clandestine Removal Demand Set Aside For Lack Of Proof | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 27, 2026

No Review on Interest/Penalty If Duty Set Aside | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Duty Demand Set Aside; Review Of Interest Penalty Invalid | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Booking Speakers Via Agents Not Event Management | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026

RCM Service Tax Refund Allowed Despite Registration Status | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026

One-Day Delayed Payment Due To Tech Glitch Accepted | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 20, 2026

Chocolate-Coated Wafers Eligible For Concessional Duty | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 19, 2026

Adjudication Invalid After SVLDRS Acceptance | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 17, 2026