Transportation Charges Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, has granted substantial relief to Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) by setting aside service tax demands aggregating to more than ₹11.03 crore, along with consequential interest and penalties, arising out of audits conducted for the period 2008-09 to 2011-12. The bench of P. K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that transportation charges recovered by BHEL from customers under turnkey power transmission projects could not be artificially reclassified as “Business Support Services” merely to bring them within the service tax net. It further ruled that accounting and consultancy services received by BHEL’s branch office in Ethiopia for operations carried out exclusively in that country were not taxable in India. BHEL, a Government of India “Maharatna” Public Sector Undertaking, undertakes projects involving the construction of power transmission switchyards and substations across the country. During a departmental audit, authorities scrutinized the company's ST-3 returns, annual reports and balance sheets and alleged that certain amounts collected towards transportation and insurance of equipment supplied under project contracts were liable to service tax. The Department also sought to levy service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on payments made to an Ethiopian accounting firm, M/s Won-Acct Consulting, which had been engaged by BHEL’s branch office in Ethiopia for local compliance and accounting purposes. Based on these allegations, four separate show cause notices were issued, culminating in an order confirming service tax demands totaling over ₹11 crore together with interest and substantial penalties. Core Issue: Transportation Charges in Power Projects The principal dispute centered on whether amounts recovered from customers towards transportation and insurance of equipment constituted taxable Business Support Services (BSS). BHEL argued that the contracts clearly envisaged transportation of goods as part of project execution. Where equipment was transported from BHEL facilities, approved Goods Transport Agencies (GTAs) were engaged and service tax under the reverse charge mechanism was duly discharged. Where goods were dispatched directly from vendors, the vendors themselves engaged GTAs and paid the applicable tax. The company maintained that it was not functioning as a GTA because it did not issue consignment notes. Therefore, the transportation activity could not be subjected to service tax under the statutory provisions governing transportation of goods by road. The Tribunal analyzed the service tax provisions applicable both before and after the introduction of the negative list regime in July 2012. It noted that under the pre-negative list framework, service tax on transportation of goods by road applied only when the service was provided by a Goods Transport Agency issuing a consignment note. Following July 2012, transportation of goods by road was specifically placed in the negative list except where provided by a GTA or courier agency. According to the Bench, transportation services rendered by a person other than a GTA were not taxable under either regime. The Tribunal emphasized that tax liability must be determined based on the true nature of the contractual arrangement rather than a recharacterization adopted by the Department. Rejecting the Department’s attempt to classify the activity as Business Support Service, the Tribunal observed that transportation of goods was the real substance of the arrangement. The Bench held that the adjudicating authority could not assign a different colour to the transaction merely because Business Support Services were taxable. It found that the transportation and insurance charges formed part of a bundled transportation arrangement and could not be separated for tax purposes. The Tribunal further noted that Business Support Service was intended to cover outsourced activities normally performed by a business entity itself, such as administrative or back-office functions. Transportation and insurance of project equipment did not fall within that category. The Bench also relied on earlier decisions involving BHEL units and similar industry participants where transportation charges had been held not liable to service tax. On the second issue, the Tribunal examined payments made by BHEL’s Ethiopian branch office to a local accounting and consultancy firm. The Department had sought to tax these services as imported services. However, the Tribunal found that the accounting services were rendered in Ethiopia, received by BHEL’s Ethiopian branch, and used exclusively for operations in that country. The Bench observed that, for service tax purposes, the Ethiopian branch and the Indian establishment were to be treated as separate establishments. Since both the service provider and the recipient branch were located outside India and the services were consumed abroad, there was no basis for levying service tax in India. The Tribunal also criticized the adjudication order for relying on legal provisions from different tax regimes without properly addressing the applicable framework for the relevant periods. A significant aspect of the ruling concerns the invocation of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal noted that the Department's entire case was built on information extracted from BHEL’s balance sheets and financial records. Since these records were publicly available and had been disclosed, the allegation of suppression of facts could not be sustained. The Bench found that no independent investigation had been conducted and no evidence had been produced to establish deliberate concealment or intent to evade tax. Consequently, invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was held to be legally untenable. Having concluded that the tax demand itself was unsustainable on merits and limitation, the Tribunal held that the associated interest liability and penalties could not survive. It specifically observed that the ingredients required for invoking the extended period and imposing penalties under Section 78 were substantially identical. Once suppression and intent to evade were not established, penalties became unsustainable. Accordingly, CESTAT set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner, CGST Noida and allowed BHEL’s appeal with consequential relief. Case Details Case Title: BHEL Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST, Noida Citation: JURISHOUR-1557-CES-2026(ALL) Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No.70721 of 2018 Date: 02.06.2026 Counsel For Appellant: Atul Gupta, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: A. K. Choudhary, Authorized Representative Click Here To Read Order Read More: Provisionally Release of 5 Kg Gold Seized by DRI: CESTAT

Transportation Charges Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 03 July, 2026

Revenue Neutrality Negates Intent to Evade Tax, CESTAT Quashes Reverse Charge Service Tax Demand

Taxpayer Can’t Be Left Remediless Over Limitation: Rajasthan HC Allows Time-Barred GST Appeal

FEMA-DGFT Merchant Trade Regulations Require Banks to Conduct Enhanced Due Diligence Before Forex Remittances: Gauhati High Court Upholds ICICI Bank Action

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 03 July, 2026

Revenue Neutrality Negates Intent to Evade Tax, CESTAT Quashes Reverse Charge Service Tax Demand

Taxpayer Can’t Be Left Remediless Over Limitation: Rajasthan HC Allows Time-Barred GST Appeal

About us

Company

Categories