The absence of a formal 'consignment note' does not disqualify a service provider from being a GTA if other documents evidence the transport. Furthermore, tax demands based solely on Form-26AS data without book verification are unsustainable, particularly when invoking the extended period of limitation.

P. K. CHOUDHARY:

M/s. J.P. Logistics (Prop: Manav Verma), has filed Service Tax Appeal No.70251/2022 for setting aside the Order-in Appeal No.361/ST/Alld/2021 dated 02.12.2021 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Service Tax, Allahabad by which the appeal was partly allowed and remaining demand of Service Tax has been confirmed under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest and penalty. Service Tax Appeal No.70831/2025 has been filed by the Appellant to assail the same in Order-in-Appeal No.97/ST/Appl/Alld/2025 dated 26.06.2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeal), CGST & Service Tax, Allahabad by which the appeal was rejected and the demand of Service Tax has been confirmed under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest and penalty. The details of the two Service Tax Appeals are as follows:-

[[IMG_1]]

2. As the Appellant is common in both the appeals and the issues involved are identical, it is considered appropriate to dispose of both the appeals by this common order.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant had taken Service Tax registration as a service provider for “Clearing and forwarding Agent Services” in the name of “M/s. J.P. Logistics” and providing GTA services in the name of “M/s. Trident Perishable Food Carriers” Proprietor : Shri Manav Verma with the same PAN. The Service Tax Registration of Appellant is AAJPV5363NSD002.

4. Since “Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services” are taxable so the Appellant charged Service Tax from the service receiver and deposited to the revenue and filed ST-3 Returns on time and the Appellant was under the bona fide belief that the GTA service comes under reverse charge so the Appellant never charged any Service Tax from the service receiver nor deposited to the revenue. On the basis of third-party data received from the Income Tax Department, under the data sharing protocol, showing the receipts of Rs.2,44,94,202/- and in ST-3 the value was shown at Rs.32,25,284/-. The difference in value shown is Rs.2,12,68,918/- for the period F.Y 2014-15 . On the aforesaid facts the Show Cause Notice, SCN dated 24.10.2019 was issued proposing to demand Service Tax as under:-

[[IMG_2]]

5. Thereafter, the Department issued a subsequent SCN dated 06.07.2021 covering the period from April, 2015 to June, 2017, proposing the following demand of Service Tax as under:-

[[IMG_3]]

6. The Appellant contested the allegations contained in the SCN by filing its reply, contending, inter alia, that demand of Service Tax on the basis of the values taken directly from the Form-26AS Statement was not justified in law.

7. The aforesaid submissions, however, were not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority. Consequently, for the period 2014– 15, vide Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2021, and for the period from April, 2015 to June, 2017, vide Order-in-Original dated 29.02.2024, the demands proposed in the respective SCNs were confirmed. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed a penalty equal to the Service Tax demand under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, along with penalties under Sections 77(1)(a) and 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, a penalty of Rs.87,000/- under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 was also imposed for the alleged failure to comply with the statutory filing requirements.

8. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the Appel