Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesNo Service Tax Payable On Logistic/Handling Services Carried Out By Car Trader:...

No Service Tax Payable On Logistic/Handling Services Carried Out By Car Trader: CESTAT

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

Author: Khushi J Prajapati

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, held that the logistic and handling services provided by car traders do not attract service tax.

Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled in favor of M/s Surjeet Auto Private Limited, stating that service tax did not apply to logistic and handling services provided by the car dealer.

The tribunal found that these services were integral to the sale of vehicles and fell within the ambit of sales price subject to VAT rather than service tax.

CESTAT looked at Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994 defining “Business Auxiliary Services” and concluded that the activities did not fall under this category.

The Tribunal rejected the demand for service tax and penalties associated with it, insisting that they should have been governed by VAT laws.

FACTS

M/s Surjeet Auto Private Limited, an authorized dealer of Hyundai cars, is engaged in the sale of vehicles and associated services. The company charged ‘logistic charges’ to customers, which comprised various vehicle preparation services such as loading, unloading, cleaning, and maintenance of cars before handing over the same to their respective buyers.

The Central Excise authorities contended that these charges were liable for service tax under the “Business Auxiliary Services” Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The authorities assessed a service tax liability of ₹4,89,964.

The appellant had already made a payment of ₹3,45,502 against it. The balance was demanded through a show cause notice along with a penalty amounting to ₹4,89,964 under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Challenging this demand the appellant argued that these charges are part and parcel of the sale transaction and hence should attract VAT and not service tax.

Case Details

Tribunal: Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, Principal Bench

Service Tax Appeal Number: 50984 Of 2018

Date of Decision: 02.08.2024

Final Order Number: 56217/2024

Appellant: Surjeet Auto Private Limited

Respondent: Commissioner of Central Goods, Service, Central Excise

Judges –  Ms. Binu Tamta, Member (Judicial) and Ms. Hemambika R. Priya, Member (Technical)

Download Judgment / Order

Juris Hour Team
Juris Hour Team
Juris Hour is an online news portal for reporting accurate and honest news, articles, judgments, Circulars, orders and notifications related to legal developments. We use the tagline ‘Proficiency At Your Doorstep’. Our mission is to simplify and communicate various legal developments in various spheres like civil, criminal, taxation, etc. and make people aware of their rights and duties in order to empower them to contribute in nation-building.Juris Hour is a team of young professionals turned legal journalists who are guided by the values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India and want to create more legal awareness in society by acting as a tool to aid legal reforms by offering a space for constructive criticism of the judiciary.

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 16, 2026.GSTGST REVOCATION ORDER QUASHED AFTER...

CBIC Circulars Not Binding On GSTAT; Inverted Duty Refund Available Where Inputs And Finished Goods Are Distinct: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Kolkata Bench, has upheld a refund...

Money Received by Intermediary Not Enough to Prove Public Servant Accepted Bribe: Supreme Court Acquits RPF Officer

The Supreme Court has acquitted a former Divisional Security Commissioner of the Railway Protection...

Loan Recovery Can’t Become “Instrument of Oppression”: Supreme Court Awards Rs.10 Lakh Compensation for Midnight Repossession of Truck

The Supreme Court has strongly deprecated the forcible repossession of a borrower’s truck by...

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 16, 2026.GSTGST REVOCATION ORDER QUASHED AFTER...

CBIC Circulars Not Binding On GSTAT; Inverted Duty Refund Available Where Inputs And Finished Goods Are Distinct: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Kolkata Bench, has upheld a refund...

Money Received by Intermediary Not Enough to Prove Public Servant Accepted Bribe: Supreme Court Acquits RPF Officer

The Supreme Court has acquitted a former Divisional Security Commissioner of the Railway Protection...