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Your email address will not be published.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
Texturising Polyester Yarn from PET Chips Not Manufacture of Filament Yarn | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

November 4, 2025

Spice Mix Adding Flavour and Aroma Classifiable as Spices Under Tariff 0910 91 00 SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

November 1, 2025

Refund on Abated Value Denied Without Challenging Self-Assessment | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 31, 2025

Refund Must Be Granted as No Stay on Judgment Excluding Trade Discounts From Turnover | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 30, 2025

Delay Beyond Condonable Limit for Fixation of Special Rate Not Excusable | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 29, 2025

HC Quashes SCN for Non-Compliance with Mandatory Pre-Consultation

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 16, 2025

SC Upholds Tax on Ink Used in Printing Lottery Tickets

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 15, 2025

Packing or Labeling of Earthmoving Machines Not Manufacture | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 14, 2025

Subscription and Entrance Fees from Members Not Liable to Service Tax | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 13, 2025

Independent Appeal Against ROM Order Dismissed Only Final Tribunal Order Appealable | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 9, 2025