Skip to main content

Taxation of Damages- “Damages paid for Breach of Contract to attract GST”


Performance is the essence of a contract and hence parties to contract generally incorporate their expectation in terms of damage caused by failure of either party to perform its obligations completely or as per the agreed terms.
The contract may prescribe damages for deficiency in the performance of contract known as ‘liquidated damages’. It is to dissuade unsatisfactory performance or non-performance. For instance, contracts state that time is the essence of contract, and any delay invites say, 1% of the value of the contract for every week of delay and the like. Similarly, it is common to forfeit earnest money deposit (EMD) from a bidder in case he wins the bid but fails to act thereafter. This forfeiture clause is a deterrent for non-serious bidders entering the fray. Other examples may be rent for delay in lifting goods; agreeing to shoulder testing charges for samples to meet standards; cost of removing rejected goods, etc.
Payment of damages or the forfeiture of deposit does not restitute the person to whom loss or damage is caused. Liquidated damages are in nature of a measure of damages to which parties agree, rather than a remedy. By charging damages or forfeiture, one party does not accept or permit the deviation of the other party. It is an expression of displeasure. Liquidated damages cannot be said to be the desired income or result of the contract.
However, the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) has ruled that payments in respect to non-performance of a contract would be liable for Goods & Service Tax (GST).  This view is based on the provisions under the erstwhile Service Tax Law, “agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act” was a declared service under Section 66E(e) of Finance Act, 1994. Similar provision has been incorporated in Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) also under Schedule II. Under GST law, the taxable event is supply which has been defined widely and includes all forms of supply for a consideration which is made in course of or in furtherance of business. The act of tolerance or agreeing to refrain from an act is treated as supply of service under the CGST Act. As per these provisions there should be an agreement between the parties to either refrain from doing an act, or to tolerate an act/situation or to do an act.
The Maharashtra Authority for Advance ruling (AAR) has stated that liquidated damages paid on operation & maintenance and erection & commissioning contracts. Entered by the applicant- Maharashtra State Power Generation Company- shall be taxable under GST @ 18%. The Authority has concluded liquidated damages to be a deemed service, covered under the phrase ‘agreeing to tolerate an act or situation’ under Para 5 of Schedule II of GST Act.
Any activity to be taxable under GST, requirement of  ‘supply’ and the consequent ‘consumption’ should be met.
However, liquidated damages may hardly satisfy the essentials of supply or service. As discussed above the purpose of agreeing to payment of liquidated damages is to ensure performance. It cannot be said to be a consideration for tolerating non-performance. The provisions of law cited above thus cannot be applied to situations where the contract does not want delay in performance rather says that time is the essence of the contract. When the aggrieved party receives damages from the defaulting party it cannot be said that the aggrieved party is tolerating the non-performance or delayed performance.
The view supporting Service Tax liability on liquidated damages and forfeiture was based on the premise that the party had ‘tolerated’ the non-performance. A contract cannot be read to be agreeing to a breach of a contract. A breach of contract is not tolerated and that is why an amount is imposed to deter breach. The contract is for execution and not for the breach
Damages for breach of contract can be considered as business expenditure in commercial transactions. If a contract is not executed because its execution would result in loss, damages paid for its breach are deductible as business expenditure.
There has to be a distinction between amount payable for breach of contractual terms, or delay in performance, and something specifically agreed upon for forbearance or tolerance of an act like a noncompete fees.
Though rulings by the AAR are case specific, they have a persuasive impact on tax assessment in cases of other firms under similar circumstances.
It is high time that the Government clarifies the issue with an illustrative list of what constitutes tolerance of an act, as the present ruling of AAR can lead to lot of litigation, particularly has made multinational companies, especially  those executing infrastructure projects, and the mining sector jittery, and it could have implications on mergers & acquisitions along with franchise arrangements too.
For any clarification, please feel free to connect with us at admin@equicorplegal.com / 08448824659.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFC)

A Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) is a  company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of loans and advances, acquisition of shares stock/bonds/debentures/securities issued by Government or local authority or other securities of like marketable nature, leasing, hire-purchase, insurance business, chit business but does not include any institution whose principal business is that of agriculture activity, industrial activity, sale/purchase/construction of immovable property. A non-banking institution which is a company and which has its principal business of receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement or any other manner, or lending in any manner is also a non-banking financial company (Residuary non-banking company). Advantages of NBFC a)it can provide loans and credit facilities, b)it can trade in  money market instruments c)it can do wealth management such as Managing portfolios of stocks and shares d)it can underwrite stock and shares and oth…

Nidhi Companies in India

This article enumerates the brief transaction procedure involved in the establishment of a Nidhi Company and the laws relating to Nidhi Company in force in India. It shall be noted that the activities described hereunder covers various relevant legislations, regulations and rules, for the time being in force in India and the legal entity has to obtain approval/register itself with Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”).
Preface In the Indian financial sector, Nidhi Company refers to any mutual benefit society notified by the MCA. They are created mainly for cultivating the habit of thrift and savings amongst its members. The amount of business conducted by Nidhi Companies is not as big as commercial banks or deposit taking Non-Banking Finance Companies. Nidhi Companies are highly localized and mostly single office institutions. They are also referred to as mutual benefit societies, because they accept deposits and give loans to only their own members; and membership is limited to individ…

Types of Companies under New Companies Act-2013

With new testament of Corporate law in force has introduced several different types of companies with special features.
ONE PERSON COMPANY (OPC) One Person Company is defined in Sub- Section 62 of Section 2 of The Companies Act, 2013, which reads as follows: 'One Person Company means a company which has only one member' It shall also be important to note that Section 3 classifies OPC as a Private Company for all the legal purposes with only one member. All the provisions related to the private company are applicable to an OPC, unless otherwise expressly excluded. ØOnly a natural person who is an Indian citizen and resident in India- üshall be eligible to incorporate a One Person Company; üshall be a nominee for the sole member of a One Person Company. ØNo person shall be eligible to incorporate more than a One Person Company or become nominee in more than one such company. ØNo minor shall become member or nominee of the One Person Company or can hold share with beneficial interest. ØT…

SEBI VS PACL: Trouble in Paradise

In its biggest-ever crackdown on a large-scale money pooling scheme estimated at nearly Rs. 50,000 crore (twice the amount to be recover from SAHARA group), regulator SEBI has ordered  Pearls Agrotech Corporation Limited (“PACL”) to refund investors within three months and wind up operations. SEBI had found PACL violating Collective Investment Scheme Regulations by mobilizing the money without being registered with the regulator, SEBI. Besides, closure of PACL operations, SEBI  is initiating further proceedings against PACL and its nine promoters and directors for fraudulent and unfair trade practices, as also for violation of SEBI's CIS Regulations, among others, as per a direction from the Supreme Court. At present, it is being estimated that PACL has more than 58.5 million customers, more than twice the 22 million demat accounts in the entire country and has paid commission of
Rs 7,893.8 crore up to March 2012  to more than its 8 lakh agents who works as network of chain system fo…

NBFC & Companies Act 2013 w.r.t. issue of Debentures

With the new testament of corporate law, Companies Act, 2013 to be effective from April 01, 2014, NBFC are facing lack of oxygen supply for their survival as to ensure that debenture issuances did not trespass into the domain of public deposits and were beginning to understand that optionally convertible debentures market will die out slowly that the rules have thrown language open to interpretation. Section 71 of the Companies Act, 2013 along with the rules implies that the debenture issuances have to be secured by specific moveable and immoveable properties. NBFCs may face a rocky time in finding these specific moveable and immoveable properties for issue of secured debenture.  Section 71 of the Companies Act, 2013 states that – 1.A company may issue debentures with an option to convert such debentures into shares, either wholly or partly at the time of redemption: Provided that the issue of debentures with an option to convert such debentures into shares, wholly or partly, shall be ap…

Nidhi Companies Rules 2014- An analysis w.r.t. Nidhi Company Registration

“Nidhi is a company formed with the exclusive object of cultivating the habit of thrift, savings and functioning for the mutual benefit of members by receiving deposits only from individuals enrolled as members and by lending only to individuals, also enrolled as members” -Section 406, Companies Act, 2013 & Companies Rules 2014
Nidhi Company are registered or formed only for the benefit for its members only, an outsider i.e. who is not the member of the Nidhi Company is not allowed to deposit any money or doing any kind of business with the concerned Nidhi Company. In this article we will analyze the impact of Nidhi Companies Rules 2014 on the registration of Nidhi Company Incorporation of Nidhi Company i)A Nidhi Company to be incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”) shall be a public company and with a minimum paid up equity share capital of five lakh rupees; ii)On and after the commencement of Companies Act, 2013, no Nidhi Company shall issue preference shares; iii)Except as…

SEBI VS SAHARA

In Sahara Desert- Distress Hours Once upon a time, Sahara’s Subrarta Roy- a friend to all who came calling-whether a matinee idol in his 80s or a sports star in her teens, self bestowed title- “Sahara Shri”- the sponsor of the Indian cricket team and a group headed by a colourful, flamboyant CEO hobnobbing with Bollywood stars and cowbelt politicianscould boast of having friends in high places. Today in this distress hours, there seems to be few people who he can turn to in his hour of distress. For the sleepy Lucknow of the 1990s whose favourite past-time seemed to be reminiscing the city’s long gone glory days, Subrata Roy Sahara brought a cash of heavy bling and some more. Sahara has stayed afloat for more than 35 years despite repeated regulatory onslaughts. The first setback was in the late '90s when RBI slashed the discretionary investment powers of its finance firm. The next blow came in 2006 when its depository services firm had to be shut down. The big jolt came in 2008 whe…