GST | Should levy of liquidated damages be a taxable supply of services?

In re: Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Limited- Ruling dated September 11, 2018 - Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (Maharashtra)

Issue: Should the levy of liquidated damages be treated as supply of services by the appellant?

Background: Appellant has awarded a contract to Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited for erection, testing & commissioning of a power plant. The contract provides for payment of liquidated damages if project completion is delayed beyond the scheduled date.

Ruling: Appellant is in a contractual agreement with the contractor to impose levy of liquidated damages in case of completion of project beyond due date. Also, appellant was well within his rights to terminate the agreement in case of delay in completion of project; but, the appellant agrees to tolerate the delay on the part of the contractor in return for payment of liquidated damages.

Similarly, when the contract specifically provides for payment of damages, it manifests a separate contractual agreement between the two parties. Both the parties voluntarily agree that damages become due once delay occurs. Hence, the appellant has tolerated an act or a situation. Any supply of services of tolerating an act is a supply under Schedule II of the CGST Act.

Comment(s): Any contract is expected to have a penal clause. Does it mean the enforcement of penal clause should be treated as a tolerating act under all circumstances?

Srinivasan V, Advocate

Recent Posts

P&H HC issues detailed guidelines on ITC denial for supplier’s non-payment

Background According to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, if tax charged in respect of…

3 weeks ago

Can consequential refund, arising from OIA, be rejected by OIO?

Background Order-in-Original (OIO, which partly rejected refund) was set aside by Order-in-Appeal (OIA). Fresh refund…

1 month ago

Inviolable principles governing Section 74 proceedings

"But for the audit undertaken by the Department, the suppression of facts would have gone…

1 month ago

Non-response to SCN & DRC01A construed as suppression: Madras HC

Background Intimation in DRC-01A and Show Cause Notice (SCN) were issued. The Petitioner failed to…

3 months ago

HC quashes GST notice & order for non-quantification of interest in notice

Issue The show cause notice issued to the Petitioner did not quantify the proposed demand…

6 months ago

Is limitation period of 2 years applicable to duplicate payments under GST law?

Issue The petitioner in the citation referred first infra, by mistake, made a duplicate payment…

7 months ago