Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE No 253 ON CLARIFICATION ON LEVY OF GST ON LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

GST UPDATE No 253 ON CLARIFICATION ON LEVY OF GST ON LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
The levy of GST on liquidated damage, compensation, penalty, cancellation charges, late payment surcharge etc. arising out of breach of contract and the scope of entry at para 5(e) of Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017 has been examined in the circular. There are many instances where a doubt arises as to levy of GST on charges such as compensation awarded against cancellation of license, bond amount recovered from an employee not serving the notice period, cancellation charges recovered for cancellation of railway tickets etc. The present update seeks to highlight the key takeaways of the said clarification issued vide Circular no. 178/10/2022-GST dated 03.08.2022 regarding the circumstances in which tax would be leviable on such charges.
 
It is stated that the service of agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act is nothing but a contractual agreement. A contract to do something or to abstain from doing something cannot be said to have taken place unless there are two parties, one of which expressly or impliedly agrees to do or abstain from doing something and other agrees to pay consideration to the first party for doing or abstaining from such an act.
 
Agreement to do or refrain from an act should not be presumed to exist:- There has to be an express or implied agreement; oral or written, to do or abstain from doing something against payment of consideration for doing or abstaining from such act, for a taxable supply to exist. For instance, liquidated damages for breach of contract, forfeiture of salary for not serving notice period, penalty for cheque dishonour are not consideration for tolerating an act or situation as nobody enters into contract for leaving employment before the agreed notice period or for breach of contract. Hence, such payments are mere events in contract and will not constitute consideration or supply.
 
Similarly, examples of liquidated damages can be penalty for delayed construction of houses, forfeiture of earnest money by a seller for breach of contract etc. which are not liable to tax as such payments are merely flow of money and not a consideration for any supply.
 
On the contrary, pre-payment penalty on early repayment of loan , amount forfeited on cancellation of service by customer as contemplated by the contract as part of commercial terms agreed to by the parties constitute consideration for supply of a facility and so even if such payments are referred as fine or penalty, such payments are subject to GST.
 
As far as compensation ordered by the Supreme Court for cancellation of coal blocks allotted to successful bidders, it was clarified that no tax is required to be paid pursuant to the Apex Court order as no such promise or offer was made by the prior allottees to the government and that the allottees had no option but to accept the cancellation.
 
Likewise, cheque dishonour fine/penalty is not a consideration for any service as no supplier wants a cheque given to him to be dishonoured. Moreover, it entails extra administrative cost to him and disruption of his routine activities and cash flow.
 
As regards imposition of tax on penalty imposed for violation of laws is concerned, no GST is leviable as laws are not framed for tolerating their violation. Reference was also made to the Service Tax Education Guide issued in 2012 that fines and penalties for violation of the provisions of law are not considerations as no service is received in lieu of payment of such fines and penalties.
 
Forfeiture of salary or payment of bond amount in the event of the employee leaving the employment before the minimum agreed period:-Premature leaving of the employment results in disruption of work and an undesirable situation. The provisions for forfeiture of salary or recovery of bond amount in the event of the employee leaving the employment before the minimum agreed period are incorporated in the employment contract to discourage non-serious candidates from taking up employment. The said amounts are recovered by the employer not as a consideration for tolerating the act of such premature quitting of employment. Further, the employee does not get anything in return from the employer against payment of such amounts. Therefore, such amounts recovered by the employer are not taxable as consideration for the service of agreeing to tolerate an act or a situation.
 
Late payment surcharge or fee:-The facility of accepting late payments with interest or late payment fee, fine or penalty is a facility granted by supplier naturally bundled with the main supply. Almost all service providers across the world provide the facility of accepting late payments with late fine or penalty. Even if this service is described as a service of tolerating the act of late payment, it is an ancillary supply naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with the principal supply, and therefore should be assessed as the principal supply.
 
Fixed Capacity charges for Power:-The fact that the minimum fixed charges remain the same whether electricity is consumed or not or it is scheduled/consumed below the contracted or available capacity or a minimum threshold, does not mean that minimum fixed charge or part of it is a charge for tolerating the act of not scheduling or consuming the minimum the contracted or available capacity or a minimum threshold. Both the components of the price, the minimum fixed charges/capacity charges and the variable/energy charges are charged for sale of electricity and are thus not taxable as electricity is exempt from GST.
 
Cancellation charges:-A supply contracted for such as booking of hotel accommodation, an entertainment event or a journey, may be cancelled by a customer or may not proceed as intended due to his failure to show up for availing the same at the designated place and time. The supplier may allow cancellation of supply by the customer within a certain specified time period on payment of cancellation fee as per commercial terms of the contract. It is stated that the facility of allowing cancellation against payment of cancellation charges is also a natural part of this bundle as it is invariably provided by all the suppliers as naturally bundled and in conjunction with the principal supply of transportation in the ordinary course of business. Hence, cancellation charges are to be assessed to tax as principal supply.
 
The above detailed circular seeks to discuss every possible nature of charges that can be treated in the entry “tolerate to do an act or refrain from doing an act” and its taxability in GST Law. It is submitted that we have already mentioned in our earlier GST update that every kind of liquidated damages or compensation is not to be treated as supply leviable to service tax unless there is express agreement to recover such compensation/damages in lieu of provision of the said service. The concept of substance over form in the agreements is the key deciding factor of whether the charges are liable to GST or not. Nonetheless, the above clarification will serve as a guiding tool to the assessees to determine their tax liability.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com