Case Details: Bajrang Enterprise vs. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise, Kolkata (2025) 35 Centax 252 (Tri.-Cal)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Shri K. Anpazhakan, Member (T)
- Smt. Shreya Mundhra, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri S.K. Jha, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, a sole proprietorship concern operating a single truck, provided transportation services without issuing any consignment notes and challenged the taxability determined by the jurisdictional authorities. The appellant contended before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that, in the absence of consignment notes, they could not be treated as a Goods Transport Agency and that the activity of transportation of goods by road fell within the Negative List under Section 66D(p)(i)(A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant further submitted that transportation services had been provided to a Government company, making such company liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism, and also relied on Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20-06-2012 as amended, noting that receipts of Rs. 750 and Rs. 1400 recorded in the cash ledger were below the exemption limit of Rs. 1500. The matter was accordingly placed before the CESTAT.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that, since the appellant had not issued any consignment notes, the essential requirement for classification as a Goods Transport Agency was not fulfilled and therefore the appellant’s activity could not be brought within the scope of taxable GTA services. The Tribunal observed that the appellant’s transportation services, being those of a sole truck operator without consignment notes, squarely fell within the Negative List under Section 66D(p)(i)(A) of the Finance Act, 1994 and were not liable to service tax. The Tribunal further held that, even otherwise, the transportation provided to a Government company would attract liability under the reverse charge mechanism, not on the appellant, and that the individual receipts of Rs. 750 and Rs. 1400 remained exempt under ‘Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20-06-2012’ as amended. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
List of Cases Cited
- Chartered Logistics v. Commissioner — (2024) 16 Centax 473 (Tri. – Ahmd.) — Referred [Para 3.1]
- Kalyani Transco v. Commissioner — (2025) 29 Centax 234 (Tri. – Kol.) — Referred [Para 3.1]
- Tata Power Company Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2024 (10) TMI 1062 — Referred [Para 3.1]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 [Para 3.3]
- Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 [Paras 3.5, 6.3]
