9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1394 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - amounts collected by the appellant in the nature of forfeiture of security deposits/earnest money and fines/penalties etc. against delayed completion of works - Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act 1994 - HELD THAT - There are other series of decisions as relied on by the appellant and what emerges is that a consistent view has been taken that the amount charged has necessarily to be a consideration for the taxable service provided under the Finance Act and the amount which has no nexus with the taxable service is not a consideration for the service provided and therefore does not become part of the value which is taxable. Such amounts have been held to be in the nature of penal charges on account of breach or non-performance of contract and are recovered with the intention to make good for the losses and to also act as a deterrent to ensure that buyer or supplier do not violate the terms of the contract. These amounts cannot be termed as consideration in lieu of any service under Section 65B (44) of the Act. Further it has been laid down that an activity to be covered as a declared service under Section 60E of the Act there must necessarily be an independent agreement to refrain or tolerate or to do an act between the parties. The Department has issued Circular No.214/1/2023-ST dated 28.02.2023 analysing the provisions of Section 66E(e) read with 66B(44) and clarified that the activities contemplated under Section 66E(e) when one party agrees to refrain from an act or to tolerate an act or a situation or to do an act are the activities where the agreement specifically refers to such an activity and there is a flow of consideration for this activity . In view thereof the amount in question is not a consideration for providing any services. Conclusion - The amount collected by the appellant is not towards rendering declared service. Appeal allowed.
The principal issue considered by the Tribunal is whether amounts collected by the appellant as forfeiture of security deposits, earnest money, fines, penalties, or liquidated damages for delayed completion of works constitute a taxable service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of Section 66E(e), which covers declared services involving an agreement to refrain from an act, tolerate an act or situation, or do an act, and whether the sums collected as penalties or liquidated damages fall within this scope as consideration for such services. In addressing this, the Tribunal examined the relevant legal framework, including:
Precedents heavily relied upon include prior decisions of the Tribunal in the appellant's own cases and the authoritative ruling in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. CCE & ST, Raipur. These cases elucidated the nature of consideration and the necessity for an agreement specifically contemplating an obligation to refrain, tolerate, or do an act, supported by a corresponding flow of consideration. The Tribunal's reasoning emphasized that the agreements between the appellant and contractors were primarily for supply of goods or services, with consideration fixed for such supply. The penal clauses for delays or breaches were safeguards to protect commercial interests and not the basis for the contract consideration. The imposition of penalties or forfeiture is a consequence of breach, not an agreed service for which consideration flows. It was noted that the recovery of liquidated damages or penalties does not amount to payment for "tolerating an act" or "agreeing to refrain from an act" in the contractual sense contemplated by Section 66E(e). The parties do not intend to tolerate breaches; rather, penalties are imposed to deter breaches and compensate for losses. There is no independent agreement to tolerate or refrain from acts in exchange for consideration. The Tribunal distinguished this from situations where parties explicitly agree to refrain from an act for consideration, such as non-compete agreements or agreements not to supply goods to third parties in return for payment, which would fall under Section 66E(e). Further, the Tribunal observed that the Department itself had issued Circular No.214/1/2023-ST clarifying that only agreements specifically referring to obligations to refrain, tolerate, or do acts with corresponding consideration qualify under Section 66E(e). The amounts collected as penalties or forfeitures in this case do not meet this criterion. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had withdrawn appeals challenging the binding precedent set by South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, reinforcing the applicability of that decision. In applying the law to the facts, the Tribunal found that the amounts collected as penalties and forfeitures were not consideration for any taxable service but were compensatory and penal in nature, thus not taxable under the Finance Act. Competing arguments by the Revenue that these amounts represent consideration for tolerating breaches were rejected based on the absence of any contractual intention to tolerate breaches and the lack of an independent agreement for such toleration. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders confirming service tax demand on these amounts were unsustainable and set aside the demand. The significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpts encapsulating the core legal principles: "Section 65B(44) defines service to mean any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration and includes a declared service. One of the declared services contemplated under Section 66E is a service contemplated under clause (e) which service is agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act. There has, therefore, to be a flow of consideration from one person to another when one person agrees to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act, or a situation, or to do an act." "The intention of the parties certainly was not for flouting the terms of the agreement so that the penal clauses get attracted. The penal clauses are in the nature of providing a safeguard to the commercial interest of the appellant and it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that recovering any sum by invoking the penalty clauses is the reason behind the execution of the contract for an agreed consideration." "The recovery of liquidated damages/penalty from other party cannot be said to be towards any service per se, since neither the appellant is carrying on any activity to receive compensation nor can there be any intention of the other party to breach or violate the contract and suffer a loss. The purpose of imposing compensation or penalty is to ensure that the defaulting act is not undertaken or repeated and the same cannot be said to be towards toleration of the defaulting party." "It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the view taken by the Principal Commissioner that penalty amount, forfeiture of earnest money deposit and liquidated damages have been received by the appellant towards 'consideration' for 'tolerating an act' leviable to service tax under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act." Core principles established are:
Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the service tax demand, and held that the amounts collected as penalties, liquidated damages, and forfeiture of security deposits are not taxable services under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.
|
