Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID : 110373
- 0 -

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM THE BUYER SERVICE TAX LIABILITY

Date 20 May 2016
Replies8 Answers
Views 1829 Views
Asked By

Sir

I have doubt on liquidated damages.

One of my client received Purchase order from the buyer for an amount of ₹ 1,00,000. Based on PO, my client (seller) purchased the raw material and processed the same and manufactured the goods. Now, buyer does not want to buy these manufactured goods and instead buyer promised to pay liquidated damage of ₹ 60,000 for loss occurred to the seller. Now, whether the amount received from the buyer falls under liquidated damages definition?, if so, whether do we need to pay service tax on this. My client (seller) is a manufacturing company and does not provide any services.

8 answers
Sort by

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide
- 0
Replied on May 20, 2016
1.

Sh.Kumaran VP Ji,

It is declared service under Section 66 (E)(e) of the Finance Act. In order to avoid repetition, please go through the detailed replies against Issue ID No.107261 dated 2.9.14 and ID No.110337 dated 11.5.2016.

- 0
Replied on May 20, 2016
2.

Thank you sir

- 0
Replied on May 20, 2016
3.

Sir i remember well that there was healthy discussion on the subject in recent pass. Thanks.

- 0
Replied on May 21, 2016
4.

Dear Kasturi Ji,

You are exactly right and on similar query different views expressed to arrive at the right clarification.

Further, I wish to say that of late , it is being observed that similar issues are raised by various friends though clarifications on such issue/s were given earlier.

Through this mail, I humbly request all the friends to kindly check the contents of the queries in the FORUM before raising their query to avoid the repetition and also to save the precious time of both the queriest and the experts who post their views.

Best Regards

Suryanarayana

- 0
Replied on May 22, 2016
5.

Sh.Surya Narayana Ji,

 

- 0
Replied on May 22, 2016
6.

Sir, Some querists do not know how to search and most are not regular visitors. So query is repeated.

- 0
Replied on May 23, 2016
7.

Sir what I think is that querist know very well that indirect taxation is a dynamic subject. What was appplicable yesterday may not be appplicable today. And what is applicable today may not applicable tomorrow. Hence they are approaching our clinic of taxation under banner TMI where we Tax Doctors render our valuable Consultation with updated medicine of Law which cures their problem. And the fact is we are providing service free of cost. Thanks.

- 0
Replied on May 24, 2016
8.

Sh.Ganeshan Kalyani Ji,

Sir, I agree with you entirely. Reply on this issue remains the same. You are absolutely right that how the querist can come to know whether the old reply is still valid or not. Only if we refer to the earlier reply, only then he would be sure about the validity of the earlier reply.

One thing more to point out is that I refer to the already filed reply only if it is still valid. I appreciate your minute observation and the drafting which is full of similes.

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide
Recent Issues