Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
ANP demanded settlement fees from appellant following breach of Production Sharing Contract (PSC). The AAAR determined that USD 80,000,000 payment constituted liquidated damages for PSC breach, not consideration for services. The payment was made to compensate losses under clause 4.5(a)(iii), with no evidence of agreement for ANP to perform, refrain from, or tolerate specific acts in exchange. Following established principles on liquidated damages, such payments represent mere flow of money without constituting consideration for supply. The AAAR overturned previous ruling which incorrectly characterized payment as service-related. Appellant not liable for GST on settlement fees as payment qualified as damages rather than consideration for supply under GST framework.
ANP demanded settlement fees from appellant following breach of Production Sharing Contract (PSC). The AAAR determined that USD 80,000,000 payment constituted liquidated damages for PSC breach, not consideration for services. The payment was made to compensate losses under clause 4.5(a)(iii), with no evidence of agreement for ANP to perform, refrain from, or tolerate specific acts in exchange. Following established principles on liquidated damages, such payments represent mere flow of money without constituting consideration for supply. The AAAR overturned previous ruling which incorrectly characterized payment as service-related. Appellant not liable for GST on settlement fees as payment qualified as damages rather than consideration for supply under GST framework.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
