Petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to submit detailed disclosures and documents for re-consideration; notices for 2019-23 may be adjudicated on me...
The CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside the impugned order and quashed demands for service tax, interest and penalties insofar as they related to forfeited earnest money, security deposits, fines and penal charges. The Tribunal held such forfeitures are penal in nature and lack nexus with any taxable "consideration" for the declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994; they do not constitute consideration for agreeing to refrain or tolerate an act and therefore are not includible in taxable value. The adjudicating authorities were rebuked for disregarding precedent, characterized as judicial indiscipline, and were warned to exercise greater care in future proceedings.
The CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside the impugned order and quashed demands for service tax, interest and penalties insofar as they related to forfeited earnest money, security deposits, fines and penal charges. The Tribunal held such forfeitures are penal in nature and lack nexus with any taxable "consideration" for the declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994; they do not constitute consideration for agreeing to refrain or tolerate an act and therefore are not includible in taxable value. The adjudicating authorities were rebuked for disregarding precedent, characterized as judicial indiscipline, and were warned to exercise greater care in future proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
