Facts of the Case:

In this case, the applicant was primarily engaged in B2B trading of goods. The applicant proposed to introduce a new logistics business model involving the transportation of goods exclusively by road for customers purchasing goods through an e-commerce platform operated by Flipkart Internet Private Limited. At the time of filing the application, the proposed activity had not yet commenced, and the ruling was sought strictly in respect of the proposed model.

Under the proposed arrangement, sellers listed on the e-commerce platform would be responsible only for delivering goods up to a designated Source Mother Hub, which would be the nearest logistics hub from the seller’s location. From this hub, the applicant would undertake the transportation of goods to the delivery address of the end customer. The transportation could involve multiple transit points such as Source Mother Hub → Destination Mother Hub → Delivery Hub → End Customer, but the entire movement would be carried out exclusively by road, using trucks, vans, two-wheelers, or a combination thereof.

The applicant would issue a single consignment note covering the entire journey from the Source Mother Hub to the end customer’s address. Transportation could be undertaken either by the applicant itself or through engagement of third-party transporters. The applicant would not own the goods at any stage; ownership and title in the goods would pass directly from the seller to the buyer as per the Buyer’s Terms of Use on the e-commerce platform. The applicant’s role was confined strictly to providing logistics and delivery services.

A separate contractual arrangement existed between the applicant and the end customer, embedded in the Buyer’s Terms of Use. By placing an order on the platform, the customer agreed to engage a transporter, facilitated by the e-commerce operator, for movement of goods at the customer’s own account. The transportation charges were payable by the end customer, either online through the e-commerce portal or by cash on delivery, and such charges were to be separately reflected in the invoice or bill of supply issued by the applicant. The applicant also proposed to arrange transit insurance for the goods during transportation.

In this factual background, the applicant approached the Authority for Advance Ruling seeking clarity on the classification of its proposed services and the availability of GST exemption when services are provided to unregistered customers.

Issue:

Whether the transportation services proposed to be provided by the applicant qualify as “Goods Transport Agency (GTA)” services under the GST law. Whether GTA services provided by the applicant to unregistered customers through an e-commerce operator’s portal are eligible for exemption under Serial No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017–Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, as amended.

Held that:

The Authority held that the proposed activity squarely qualifies as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services. It was observed that the statutory definition of GTA under Notification No. 11/2017 and Notification No. 12/2017 requires two essential elements: (i) transportation of goods by road, and (ii) issuance of a consignment note. Both conditions were satisfied in the applicant’s case.

The Authority emphasized that issuance of a consignment note is a sine qua non for classification as a GTA, as it evidences transfer of lien and responsibility for safe delivery of goods. Reliance was placed on principles evolved under the erstwhile Service Tax regime, where courts and tribunals consistently held that transporters issuing consignment notes fall within the ambit of GTA. The Authority further clarified that ancillary activities such as loading, unloading, transshipment, and temporary warehousing, when provided in relation to and in the course of transportation, form part of a composite supply of GTA services, as clarified by CBIC Circular No. 234/28/2024-GST dated 11.10.2024. It was also categorically held that the applicant’s activity could not be equated with that of a courier agency, since transportation was entirely by road and supported by issuance of a consignment note.

On the question of exemption, the Authority held that the end customer is the recipient of the transportation service within the meaning of Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, as the consideration for transportation is payable by the end customer. Where such end customers are unregistered persons, the services provided by the applicant as a GTA fall within the scope of Serial No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017–Central Tax (Rate). The Authority concluded that GTA services provided to unregistered individuals, who do not fall under any of the excluded categories specified in Entry 21A, are fully exempt from GST. It was further clarified that incidental and ancillary services provided in the course of such transportation would also enjoy the same exemption as part of a composite supply.

Case Name: In Re: FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED dated 09.12.2025

To read the complete judgement 2025 Taxo.online 3301