The CESTAT, Delhi in M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Limited v. Commissioner, Central Goods, Service Tax and Central Excise. [Service Tax Appeal No. 50774 of 2022-SM dated June 03, 2022] set aside the order of the Revenue Department demanding Service Tax on the amount of liquidated damages. Held that, Service Tax is not payable on liquidated damages collected in the nature of penalty.
Facts:
M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (“the Appellant”) is engaged in providing taxable services under the head renting of ‘Immovable Properties, Legal Consultancy, Manpower Supply Service etc.’.
A Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) dated April 04, 2019 was issued by the Commissioner, Central Goods, Service Tax and Central Excise (“the Respondent”) demanding Service Tax under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act 1994 (“Finance Act”) on the charges of penalty levied and collected by the Appellant from their contractors. The SCN was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demands was confirmed vide Order-in-Original (“OIO”), with equal amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act.
Subsequently, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the Order-in-Appeal (“the Impugned Order”) upheld the OIO. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
The Appellant contended that that there was no agreement between the Appellant and their contractors, to perform any of the act mentioned in Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act.
Issue:
Whether the Appellant is liable to pay Service Tax on the liquidated damages recovered from their contractors?
Held:
The CESTAT, Delhi in Service Tax Appeal No. 50774 of 2022-SM dated June 03, 2022 held as under:
- Noted that, as per Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, a ‘declared service’ means agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act.
- Further noted that, there is no contract between the Appellant and their contractors to refrain from an act or to tolerate an act or a situation or to do an act in favour of their contractors or to tolerate any act or situation. Further, for such alleged act or tolerance, no remuneration is prescribed in the contract.
- Observed that, the amount of liquidated damages levied by the Appellant against their contractors was in the nature of penalty and not by way of any consideration for any service defined under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act.
- Set aside the Impugned Order.
- Held that, the Appellant has not received amount for any service under as defined in Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act. Thus, the Appellant is entitled to consequential benefits.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
We have recently released the 7th Edition (May, 2022) of our book on Goods and Services Tax, titled, “GST LAW AND COMMENTARY – WITH ANALYSIS AND PROCEDURES”, updated with the Finance Act, 2022 in a set of 4 Volumes. We thank you all for the support and your enduring response.
Have a look at the complete tour of the Book at: https://cutt.ly/nF6O0oN
Order your copy now and be a part of the GST learning excursion in the most comprehensive and lucid form !!
For more details and purchase online at: https://cutt.ly/RFMox8D