Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether amounts recovered as liquidated damages, forfeiture of security deposits, fines and penalties for delay or breach by contractors constitute consideration for tolerating an act and therefore fall within the scope of a declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Analysis: The contractual receipts were found to be penal clauses intended to safeguard commercial interests and to deter breach, not consideration for any independent promise by the appellant to tolerate delay or default. On a reading of the agreement as a whole, the intention of the parties was the supply of goods or services, not the creation of any separate service of toleration. The Tribunal followed the settled view that such recoveries do not amount to consideration for a taxable service, and that no service existed within the meaning of section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Conclusion: The recovery of penalty-related amounts was not taxable as a declared service, and the issue was decided in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The demand founded on the theory of toleration of an act could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Contractual penal recoveries for delay or breach are not consideration for a taxable service unless there is an independent agreement to tolerate, refrain from, or do an act for consideration.