Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Assessee's project-completion revenue recognition upheld; income addition deleted under Guidance Note/AS-9 and percentage-completion rules as complian...
AAR held that liquidated damages paid by the applicant to the concessionaire under the concession agreement do not constitute consideration for a taxable supply and are not subject to GST; accordingly, the concessionaire is not entitled to avail input tax credit in respect of such receipts. The Authority applied Circular No.178/10/2022-GST reasoning that where damages merely compensate for loss without any express or implied agreement by the recipient to tolerate or perform acts for the payer, such payments are a monetary compensation flow and not taxable. AAR further noted CBIC clarification on penal charges as analogous, observing the charges enforce contractual discipline for breaches. No other questions required adjudication.
AAR held that liquidated damages paid by the applicant to the concessionaire under the concession agreement do not constitute consideration for a taxable supply and are not subject to GST; accordingly, the concessionaire is not entitled to avail input tax credit in respect of such receipts. The Authority applied Circular No.178/10/2022-GST reasoning that where damages merely compensate for loss without any express or implied agreement by the recipient to tolerate or perform acts for the payer, such payments are a monetary compensation flow and not taxable. AAR further noted CBIC clarification on penal charges as analogous, observing the charges enforce contractual discipline for breaches. No other questions required adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.