Security deposit forfeiture and penalty amounts for delayed work completion not subject to service tax under Section 66E(e)

The CESTAT New Delhi ruled that amounts collected as forfeiture of security deposits, earnest money, and fines/penalties for delayed work completion are not subject to service tax under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal held these amounts lack nexus with taxable services and constitute penal charges for contract breach rather than consideration for services. The amounts cannot be termed 'consideration' under Section 65B(44) as they don't flow from independent agreements for declared services. The tribunal cited departmental circular clarifying that Section 66E(e) requires specific agreements with consideration flow for covered activities. Appeal was allowed.

---

---

The principal issue considered by the Tribunal is whether amounts collected by the appellant as forfeiture of security deposits, earnest money, fines, penalties, or liquidated damages for delayed completion of works constitute a taxable service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.

The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of Section 66E(e), which covers declared services involving an agreement to refrain from an act, tolerate an act or situation, or do an act, and whether the sums collected as penalties or liquidated damages fall within this scope as consideration for such services.

In addressing this, the Tribunal examined the relevant legal framework, including:

• Section 65B(44) defining "service" as any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration, including declared services.
• Section 66E(e) specifying declared services relating to agreeing to obligations to refrain, tolerate, or do acts.
• Section 67 Explanation (a) clarifying that "consideration" includes any amount payable for taxable services.

Precedents heavily relied upon include prior decisions of the Tribunal in the appellant's own cases and the authoritative ruling in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. CCE & ST, Raipur. These cases elucidated the nature of consideration and the necessity for an agreement specifically contemplating an obligation to refrain, tolerate, or do an act, supported by a corresponding flow of consideration.

The Tribunal's reasoning emphasized that the agreements between the appellant and contractors were primarily for supply of goods or services, with consideration fixed for such supply. The penal clauses for delays or breaches were safeguards to protect commercial interests and not the basis for the contract consideration. The imposition of penalties or forfeiture is a consequence of breach, not an agreed service for which consideration flows.

It was noted that the recovery of liquidated damages or penalties does not amount to payment for "tolerating an act" or "agreeing to refrain from an act" in the contractual sense contemplated by Section 66E(e). The parties do not intend to tolerate breaches; rather, penalties are imposed to deter breaches and compensate for losses. There is no independent agreement to tolerate or refrain from acts in exchange for consideration.

The Tribunal distinguished this from situations where parties explicitly agree to refrain from an act for consideration, such as non-compete agreements or agreements not to supply goods to third parties in return for payment, which would fall under Section 66E(e).

Further, the Tribunal observed that the Department itself had issued Circular No.214/1/2023-ST clarifying that only agreements specifically referring to obligations to refrain, tolerate, or do acts with corresponding consideration qualify under Section 66E(e). The amounts collected as penalties or forfeitures in this case do not meet this criterion.

The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had withdrawn appeals challenging the binding precedent set by South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, reinforcing the applicability of that decision.

In applying the law to the facts, the Tribunal found that the amounts collected as penalties and forfeitures were not consideration for any taxable service but were compensatory and penal in nature, thus not taxable under the Finance Act.

Competing arguments by the Revenue that these amounts represent consideration for tolerating breaches were rejected based on the absence of any contractual intention to tolerate breaches and the lack of an independent agreement for such toleration.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders confirming service tax demand on these amounts were unsustainable and set aside the demand.

The significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpts encapsulating the core legal principles:

"Section 65B(44) defines service to mean any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration and includes a declared service. One of the declared services contemplated under Section 66E is a service contemplated under clause (e) which service is agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act. There has, therefore, to be a flow of consideration from one person to another when one person agrees to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act, or a situation, or to do an act."

"The intention of the parties certainly was not for flouting the terms of the agreement so that the penal clauses get attracted. The penal clauses are in the nature of providing a safeguard to the commercial interest of the appellant and it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that recovering any sum by invoking the penalty clauses is the reason behind the execution of the contract for an agreed consideration."

"The recovery of liquidated damages/penalty from other party cannot be said to be towards any service per se, since neither the appellant is carrying on any activity to receive compensation nor can there be any intention of the other party to breach or violate the contract and suffer a loss. The purpose of imposing compensation or penalty is to ensure that the defaulting act is not undertaken or repeated and the same cannot be said to be towards toleration of the defaulting party."

"It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the view taken by the Principal Commissioner that penalty amount, forfeiture of earnest money deposit and liquidated damages have been received by the appellant towards 'consideration' for 'tolerating an act' leviable to service tax under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act."

Core principles established are:

• The amount collected as penalty, liquidated damages, or forfeiture for breach of contract is not consideration for a declared service under Section 66E(e).
• For a service to be taxable under Section 66E(e), there must be an express agreement to refrain from, tolerate, or do an act, supported by consideration specifically for that obligation.
• Penal sums recovered due to breach or non-performance are compensatory and deterrent in nature and do not constitute taxable consideration.
• Binding precedents and departmental circulars support this interpretation, and the absence of an independent agreement to tolerate or refrain excludes such amounts from service tax liability.

Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the service tax demand, and held that the amounts collected as penalties, liquidated damages, and forfeiture of security deposits are not taxable services under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.

---