Toleration of contractual breach requires prior consideration-linked consent; public infrastructure services and road-work relief remained exempt.

Amounts recovered, forfeited or written off because subcontractors breached contractual obligations are not consideration for tolerating an act unless a prior agreement requires tolerance in return for consideration; the miscellaneous-income levy was therefore unsustainable. Infrastructure services supplied to HSIIDC qualified for exemption because it was State-controlled and performed municipal-type public-utility functions, while the contracted works were public infrastructure. Separately identifiable road-work components of composite contracts remained eligible for the applicable exclusion or exemption. As the taxpayer had disclosed records, filed returns and faced an interpretational audit dispute, there was no suppression with intent to evade tax; the extended period and penalty could not apply.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether miscellaneous income arising from write-off or recovery of advances from defaulting subcontractors was taxable as agreeing to tolerate an act; (ii) whether infrastructure services supplied to HSIIDC qualified for exemption as services provided to a governmental authority; (iii) whether relief for road-work components of composite contracts was proper; (iv) whether the extended period and penalty could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether miscellaneous income arising from write-off or recovery of advances from defaulting subcontractors was taxable as agreeing to tolerate an act.

Analysis: Taxability of toleration requires an agreement or contractual understanding obliging a person to tolerate an act or situation, with consideration specifically flowing for that tolerance. Recovery, forfeiture, compensation, or adjustment resulting from breach does not constitute consideration without a service nexus. The amounts arose because subcontractors failed to perform or delivered deficient work; there was no contractual clause allowing deliberate default upon payment of charges or any agreement to tolerate deficient performance.

Conclusion: The miscellaneous income was not consideration for agreeing to tolerate an act and was not taxable; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether infrastructure services supplied to HSIIDC qualified for exemption as services provided to a governmental authority.

Analysis: HSIIDC was under complete State governmental control and performed infrastructure and civic-utility functions, including development of industrial areas, roads, bridges, water management and public amenities, substantially corresponding to municipal functions under Article 243W. The contracted works-roads, footpaths, boundary walls, drainage, water supply and electrification-were infrastructure and public-utility works, and no material established predominant commercial exploitation.

Conclusion: HSIIDC qualified as a governmental authority and the infrastructure services were exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-ST; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether relief for road-work components of composite contracts was proper.

Analysis: The composite contracts contained separable components with independent rates. Classification depended upon the nature of each discernible component, and road-construction services enjoyed the applicable exclusion or exemption during the relevant period.

Conclusion: Relief in respect of the road-work components was proper; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the extended period and penalty could be invoked.

Analysis: The assessee was registered, regularly filed returns, and had disclosed the relevant records that were subject to audit. The dispute was interpretational and arose from audit scrutiny. Suppression requires deliberate intent to evade tax and cannot be inferred merely from a subsequent departmental interpretation of disclosed facts.

Conclusion: The extended period was unavailable and the penalty was unsustainable; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed miscellaneous-income levy, the levy on infrastructure services to HSIIDC, and the extended-period consequences were negated, while the road-work relief was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts recovered or written off for contractual breach are not taxable as consideration for tolerating an act absent a prior obligation to tolerate the breach for consideration; infrastructure services to a State-controlled body performing municipal functions qualify for the governmental-authority exemption where the works are public-utility infrastructure.

---