Raja Abhishek For NIRC 2024

@abhishekrajaram

about 2 months ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—–š—µš—²š—»š—»š—®š—¶ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—Ÿš—¶š—¾š˜‚š—¶š—±š—®š˜š—²š—± š——š—®š—ŗš—®š—“š—²š˜€ š—®š—»š—± š—•š—®š—»š—ø š—šš˜‚š—®š—暝—®š—»š˜š—²š—² š—˜š—»š—°š—®š˜€š—µš—ŗš—²š—»š˜ šŸ“¢ The Tribunal held: "Encashment of performance/bank guarantees and amounts retained as liquidated damages are not a consideration for the provision of any service and thus are not subject to service tax."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. (CMRL) š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Are liquidated damages and bank guarantee encashments subject to service tax? š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: CMRL encashed bank guarantees and retained amounts as liquidated damages due to contractor non-performance.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that damages collected for non-performance are not taxable as they are not consideration for tolerating an act, per CBIC Circular No. 214/1/2023-ST. With no contractual basis to imply payment for tolerating breaches, all service tax demands, interest, and penalties were set aside.

š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—暝—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise š—¦š—²š—暝˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—”š—½š—½š—²š—®š—¹ š—”š—¼. 40046 of 2020 š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 12 September 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling reinforces that liquidated damages and similar compensatory payments do not constitute taxable services.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own