https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754156 CESTAT Kolkata held that forfeiture of earnest money deposit, security deposit, retention money, and liquidated damages do not constitute taxable consideration under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act for tolerating an act. Following precedent from South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. case, the Tribunal ruled that penalty amounts and forfeited deposits are not liable to service tax. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed, establishing that such forfeitures fall outside the scope of service tax liability under the tolerating an act provision. en-us Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754156 CESTAT Kolkata held that forfeiture of earnest money deposit, security deposit, retention money, and liquidated damages do not constitute taxable consideration under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act for tolerating an act. Following precedent from South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. case, the Tribunal ruled that penalty amounts and forfeited deposits are not liable to service tax. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed, establishing that such forfeitures fall outside the scope of service tax liability under the tolerating an act provision. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754156