PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
The CESTAT held that amounts collected as fines, penalties, liquidated damages, or forfeiture of deposits from contractors for failure to meet contractual obligations do not constitute consideration for taxable services under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. Such amounts are penal in nature, intended to compensate for losses or deter breaches, and lack nexus with any service rendered. Consequently, these amounts cannot be classified as "Declared Services" under Section 66E(e) without an independent agreement to tolerate or refrain from an act. The tribunal affirmed that no service was performed corresponding to these charges, and thus no service tax demand under Section 66E(e) is maintainable. The impugned order demanding service tax on such amounts was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that amounts collected as fines, penalties, liquidated damages, or forfeiture of deposits from contractors for failure to meet contractual obligations do not constitute consideration for taxable services under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. Such amounts are penal in nature, intended to compensate for losses or deter breaches, and lack nexus with any service rendered. Consequently, these amounts cannot be classified as "Declared Services" under Section 66E(e) without an independent agreement to tolerate or refrain from an act. The tribunal affirmed that no service was performed corresponding to these charges, and thus no service tax demand under Section 66E(e) is maintainable. The impugned order demanding service tax on such amounts was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
