Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

Update on importance of consignment note in determining tax liability 114/2020-21

Update on importance of consignment note in determining tax liability 114/2020-21

The issue regarding issuance of consignment note by GTA for levying tax has been matter of dispute since erstwhile indirect tax regime as there were contrary decisions rendered by courts. This confusion is continued in GST regime as well as recently, advance ruling was filed by M/s Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation before AAR to seek answer as to whether they are liable to pay GST under reverse charge mechanism on services of transportation availed by unregistered transporters when no consignment note was issued to them. The decision of AAR is the subject matter of discussion in our present update.
 
As per Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017,” goods transport agency” means any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called. In the present case, the applicant is a Government body constituted under State Assembly of Uttarakhand State and is sole agency for removal and sale of forest produce from the entire forest area in Uttarakhand. The applicant after felling trees gets timber transported to its sale depots. For this purpose, the applicant hires truck transporter from open market accordingly as per availability of vehicles and get transported to its sales depot from road head. Due to unique nature of goods, the applicant itself fills Form 2.1 for transportation of goods which is called “Ravana”. Form 2.1 is printed format of applicant to transport timber from one place to another which carries details of material, vehicle no., name of driver & signature & other details. Thereafter the goods are handed over to transporter with signed Form 2.1. The truck transporter after delivering the goods receives Form 3.3 from depot officer of applicant which proves that he has delivered the goods. Further, transporters do not issue any consignment note.
The AAR found that ‘consignment note’ has not been defined in the Act or in the Notification either. Therefore, they referred Explanation to Rule 4B of Service Tax Rules, 1994 wherein ‘consignment note’ has been defined as a document provided by a goods transport agency against the receipt of goods for the transport of goods by roadways in a goods carriage. The document contains the details like serial number, name of the consigner and consignee, registration number of the goods carriage in which the goods are transported, details of goods being transported, details of the place of origin and destination, and the person who will be liable for payment of freight. AAR noticed that the details required to be mentioned in the consignment note were also mentioned on the so called ‘ravana’ issued in the case. Hence, it was concluded that said ‘ravana’ should be considered as consignment note as if it is interpreted that non-issuance of consignment note by GTA does not require payment of GST, then it would open avenues for tax evasion which is definitely not intended. Therefore, it was held that the services received from the unregistered transporters by the applicant falls under the definition of “GTA’ services in terms of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and the same are covered under ‘RCM’ in terms of Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
The provisions of GST law are similar to erstwhile indirect taxation law and so the judicial pronouncements of erstwhile regime have reference value in GST era also. It is worth mentioning that there have been decisions rendered by various Tribunals in the erstwhile regime that non-issuance of consignment notes would not attract service tax liability. To illustrate, reference may be made to CHHATTISGARH STATE CO-OPERATIVE MKG. FEDERATION LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF S.T., RAIPUR [2019 (22) G.S.T.L. 265 (TRI. - DEL.)] andNORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD [2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 245 (TRI. - ALL.)] wherein it was held that consignment notes are mandatory requirement for levying service tax and non-issuance of consignment will lead to no liability to discharge service tax. However, contrary view was taken in the case of BHARATHI SOAP WORKS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., GUNTUR [2008 (9) S.T.R. 80 (TRI. – BANG.)]wherein it was held that non-issuance of consignment note cannot be ground for not following statutory provisions and transporters were bound to issue consignment notes and service recipient were liable to pay service tax. Therefore, the tussle regarding importance of consignment note for levying tax will be resolved only by decision of Apex Court or clarification by the Government.
 

This is solely for educational purpose.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com , at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21 and u may also follow us on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com