Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Publish Date: 12 May, 2007
Print   |    |  Comment

LEVY ON GOODS TRANSPORT AGENCY: - TOTAL CONFUSION

LEVY ON GOODS TRANSPORT AGENCY: - TOTAL CONFUSION
The recently introduced service tax on “Goods Transport Agency” is creating a lot of confusions. It will be very difficult to implement it in absence of clarification. Otherwise, it will lead to undue litigation. The points of confusion are discussed below: -
 
  1. Confusion of Responsibility: -The responsibility to pay service tax is on consignor or consignee when they fall in the specified categories. Otherwise, the responsibility shifts on the transport agency. The agency has to write in the consignment note the person liable to pay the service tax. It will be very difficult for the transporter to collect details of payer of freight for each such consignment more particularly when the liability is on the consignee. Suppose an agency books a consignment from Delhi to Hyderabad and the freight is to be paid by the consignee. Then the transport agency sitting in Delhi should know whether the consignee is proprietor or partnership firm so that he can mention in the consignment note about person liable to pay service tax. The agency will like to pay the service tax instead. But the rule does not provide such option to the transport agency. This will give rise to litigation.
  2. Payment of service tax on receipt basis: -The Service Tax Rules provide for the payment of service tax on receipt basis. When the responsibility is on the transport agency to pay service tax, it is very difficult for the agency to pay on such basis. The consignment note is prepared at the place of origin and payment is to be made at the time of delivery by the consignee. The tax is to be paid at the time of receipt of freight from delivery point to the place of origin or at the time of receipt at the delivery point itself. Secondly, the transport agency has to sort out the consignment falling under his responsibility and then to look for its receipt. Thereafter, pay the service tax. It is cumbersome job. The regular account with the parties creates more problems. He has to see which consignment is paid when consignee makes a lump sum payment.
Suppose, a transport agency does not have office at the place of destination then he hand over the goods to other transport agency. Who will pay the service tax? Whether the agency that has raised the consignment note or the agency that has received the payment? In such a situation, payment of service tax at the time of raising of bill itself is simple solution.
 The payment of service tax on receipt basis by consignee or consignor is also a problem. The consignor or consignee has to pay the tax when the payment is made to the agency. But it will not be acceptable to the department. They will insist on payment of service tax in the month when the bill is received.
 
  1. Delivery charges: - Normally a transport agency charges extra delivery charges, loading and unloading expenses from the customer at the time of delivery of goods. These are not included in the consignment note. The service tax liability occurs on the same. But the delivery office will not pay the tax on the same, as they have not raised the consignment note. Secondly, in case change of transport agency, the agency receiving the payment will pay the service tax even though he has not issued the consignment note for such consignment. This needs immediate attention.
 
  1. Preparation of Consignment Note: -Notification requires that the transport agency should write the goods carriage number in the consignment note. But when the small consignments are received then the agency keeps the goods in godown and put them in the truck when the complete truck load is available. Sometimes it takes weeks altogether to complete a truckload for small consignments. As such it is impossible to mention the vehicle number at the time of booking of consignment note. This condition should be dispensed with.
 
  1. Sale in Transit: - When a consignment note is booked by the transport agency in name of specified person as consignee then the agency mentions the liability of the consignee in the consignment note. The consignee sales the goods to a non-specified person before these goods reach the destination. This sale is known as Sale-in-transit and approved under the Sales Tax Laws. Who will bear the responsibility of the service tax? The original consignee has not paid the freight and new consignee is not liable to pay the service tax. The Transport agency can not bear the same from his pocket.
 
  1. Endorsed Bilty: - It is normal practice in textile industry that the goods are delivered unsold to the transport agency. When the goods are sold at the place of destination then the consignment note is endorsed to the consignee. He takes the delivery and pays the freight. Suppose the consignee is a specified person in such sale. In such cases, who will pay the service tax? If the transporter pays the service tax and consignee is a specified person then the department will not accept the same, as the option is not available with the transporter to pay the service tax. But the agency can not forgo the liability, as he does not know the consignee at the time of preparation of consignment note.
 
  1. Absence of Transport Agency: -The next point of confusion is whether the service tax is payable when the goods carriage owner directly takes the goods from the consignor and no consignment note is issued. No transport agency is involved for this consignment. No service tax will be payable as the tax is on the transport agency only. But this position will endanger the very existence of the transport agencies. In case of full truckload, everyone will prefer the direct delivery because it will extinguish their tax liability.
 
These all confusion points need immediate attention for smooth implementation of this new levy. In absence of the same, this complicated levy will have the same outcome as earlier had. It will be withdrawn in next budget.       

--------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

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