Page 114 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

200 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
at Jaipur”. The contract that has been awarded is also for transportation of Ready
Mix Concrete from the plant of the appellant on the terms and conditions men-
tioned in the work order. Condition No. 1 of the work order is that the appellant
shall load RMC in the vehicle and transport the same to the required destination
and unload it at the customer's site. Merely because the work order requires the
appellant to deploy a fleet of 6M3 capacity vehicles for transport of 9000 M3 of
RMC every month does not mean that the appellant has given vehicles on hire.
The work order only requires the appellant to ensure that it has available a fleet
of vehicles adequate enough to transport a particular quantity of RMC every
month. Even the transportation charges are under two heads. The first is pay-
ment of a certain amount for the quantity of RMC transported during a calendar
month and a certain amount per km for the distance travelled for transportation
of RMC during the month.
22. It is for this reason that the appellant had contended that the activi-
ty of transportation of RMC by road falls under the taxable service GTA. Howev-
er, this contention of the appellant has not been accepted by the Commissioner
for the reason that clause 12 of the work order deals with a minimum quantity of
RMC to be transported per month per vehicle. According to the Commissioner, it
cannot be said to be a case of transportation of goods by road by a goods
transport agency “because in the case of transport of goods by road the service
recipient books a vehicle for transportation of goods and pays freight for such
booking for the transportation of goods”. The Commissioner failed to appreciate
that under the work order, the appellant was required to transport RMC for
which purpose the appellant was required to load RMC in the vehicles of the
appellant and transport the same to the required destination and unload it. The
requirement under the work order that the appellant should have a fleet of vehi-
cles, adequate enough to transport 9000 M3 RMC every month would not mean
that the appellant had given the vehicle on hire. The Commissioner was required
to examine all the conditions of the work order but the finding is based on an
assumption that vehicle was hired for transportation of RMC.
23. The Commissioner also fell into an error in assuming that if a min-
imum load of 745 cum per month per vehicle is not loaded, then too the appel-
lant would be entitled to payment on this minimum quantity to conclude that in
this manner payment would also be made for goods that have not been trans-
ported and no consignment note would have been issued for the same.
24. Under Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 a consignment note is
a document issued by a GTA reflecting the name of the cosigner and consignee,
registration number of the goods carried in which the goods are transported, de-
tails of the goods transported, details of the place of origin and the destination
and the person liable for paying the service tax. The consignment notes issued to
by the appellant which are contained from the pages 112 to 130 of the appeal pa-
per book contain all the particulars as mentioned in Rule 4B and the issuance of
the consignment note has not been disputed in the show cause notice.
25. It would be seen from that pre-negative list period prior to 1 July,
2012 that the following two conditions have to be satisfied for a service to fall
within the purview of GTA service :-
(i) There should be transportation of goods by road; and
(ii) Issuance of consignment note by GTA for the post-negative
list period from 1 July, 2012 to 31 March, 2013.

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  114