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 penalties and liquidated damages recovered from suppliers and vendors for delayed delivery of goods or services constitute consideration for a declared service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, so as to attract service tax.
Analysis: The recoveries arose from contractual clauses intended to compensate the innocent party for breach or default and were not consideration flowing from a consensual agreement to tolerate delay. Liability under Section 66E(e) requires a bilateral arrangement with consideration for refraining from an act, tolerating an act or situation, or doing an act. The contractual penalty mechanism is distinct from a service transaction and does not become taxable merely because damages are collected after breach. The issue was governed by binding precedent holding that liquidated damages, forfeiture of earnest money, and penalty amounts are not consideration for tolerating an act.
Conclusion: Such recoveries do not constitute consideration for a declared service under Section 66E(e) and are not liable to service tax.
Ratio Decidendi: Consideration for a declared service under Section 66E(e) must arise from a consensual agreement to refrain from an act, tolerate an act or situation, or do an act, and contractual damages or penalties recovered on breach are compensatory rather than consideration for service.