The CESTAT, Mumbai in M/s. Auto Cars v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Aurangabad [Service Tax Appeal No. 87630 of 2016 and 85895 of 2017 dated September 16, 2022] set aside the recovery demand orders against the assessee. Held that, the activity carried on by the assessee for providing the services of ‘Goods Transport Agency’ (“GTA”) does not fall within the category of ‘Clearing and Forwarding Agent’, provided to several recipients who were liable to discharge tax dues on freight under ‘Reverse Charge Mechanism (“RCM”)’ after availing permissible abatement.
Source a2ztaxcorp
Latest Posts in "India"
- GST on Hotel Rooms ≤ Rs 7,500: 5% Rate, No ITC for Hotels or Business Travellers
- GSTN Releases Key FAQs on GSTR 9/9C Filing for Financial Year 2024-25
- Supreme Court: VAT Credit Cannot Be Denied Due to Supplier’s Tax Default
- Trickiest countries in which to achieve compliance
- India announces changes in the Invoice Management System
