2025 (5) TMI 1996 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax on incentives/discounts - applicability of revenue neutrality - Cancellation charges of booking made by customers for purchase of motor vehicles and commission received from banking and other financial institution for processing of loan etc - demand of interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 - HELD THAT - We find that on the basis of advance booking of cars the Appellant placed orders with HMI to manufacture/supply the cars but on account of cancellation there was some kind of loss to the dealer and to compensate the same cancellation charges were collected. There is no service element in such transaction. The amount collected towards cancellation charges does not represent consideration received on account of provision of any service. The Appellant entered into a contract with its customers where customers pledged to buy car. The non-defaulting party in such a case is entitled to damages from the defaulting party. The damages could be in the form of liquidated damages in which case the amount to be paid as compensation is decided before hand and indicated in the contract itself. Liquidated damages are not a consideration for contract of service but a compensation for breaking the contract. Where a customer books a car he enters into a contract agreeing to buy it. If he re-negates on the contract an amount is recovered as damages which in this case is called as booking cancellation charges . It needs to be noted that a consideration is the purpose of the contract the damages are penalty for breaking it. Therefore booking cancellation charges being in the nature of damages are not a consideration for the contract. The CBIC vide Circular No.178/10/2022-GST dated August 03 2022 confirmed this legal position. Therefore the demand of service on the amounts received on this account needs to be set aside. We find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Further reference is made to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Comet Car Sales Service Pvt. Ltd. 2024 (11) TMI 667 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD whereby it has been held that booking cancellation charges received by the Appellant is in the nature of compensation and not consideration for service. Hence no Service Tax is chargeable thereon. Further in the case of Divine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. 2024 (6) TMI 1329 - CESTAT NEW DELHI the Tribunal categorically held that there is no service element in cancellation charges of booking. Hence no Service Tax is chargeable thereon. Hence we hold that demand on booking cancellation charges received by the Appellant is not sustainable and is liable to be dropped. In the case of Jain Irrigation System Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 160 - CESTAT MUMBAI the Tribunal holds that revenue neutral situation comes about when credit is available to assessee himself. In the case of Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (4) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court accepted the stand that the duty payable in respect of beverage basis/concentrates is modvatable. Since the duty payable is modvatable there is no revenue implication. By applying the ratio of above decisions we find that the demand on commission is a revenue neutrality case and as such no demand is sustainable. As regards interest and penalty we find that the issue is no more res integra. Once demand is not sustainable interest would not survive and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 would not be imposable. Thus the impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed with consequential relief as per law.

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are as follows:

(i) Whether Service Tax was chargeable on the cancellation charges collected by the Appellant from customers who cancelled their booking for purchase of cars;

(ii) Whether the case involves revenue neutrality in respect of Service Tax on commission received by the Appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Chargeability of Service Tax on Cancellation Charges

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal examined the nature of cancellation charges in the context of Service Tax law, particularly the concept of "consideration" under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as well as the definition of "consideration" under the Finance Act and related Circulars. The Tribunal relied heavily on the Larger Bench decision in Repco Home Finance Ltd., which clarified the meaning of "consideration" for taxable services, distinguishing it from contractual conditions or penalties.

The Tribunal also referred to Section 74 of the Contract Act regarding compensation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated, emphasizing that such compensation or liquidated damages do not constitute consideration for a service but are damages for breach of contract.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that cancellation charges are collected as compensation for loss suffered by the dealer due to the customer's breach of contract by cancelling the booking. These charges are not consideration for any service rendered but are liquidated damages agreed upon in the contract. The Tribunal emphasized that the cancellation charges do not represent payment for a service but are a contractual remedy for breach.

The Tribunal noted that the CBIC Circular No. 178/10/2022-GST dated August 3, 2022, also supports this position, confirming that cancellation charges are not taxable as service consideration.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Appellant's contract with customers involved advance booking of vehicles, with cancellation charges stipulated as liquidated damages. The Tribunal found no service element in the transaction of collecting cancellation charges. The Appellant's refund of booking amounts after deducting cancellation charges further supported the characterization of such charges as compensation.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the principles from the Larger Bench decision and the Contract Act, the Tribunal concluded that the cancellation charges are damages for breach of contract and not consideration for any service. Hence, they are not subject to Service Tax.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued for confirmation of Service Tax demand on cancellation charges, but the Tribunal rejected this, holding that the demand was unsustainable in law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the demand of Service Tax on cancellation charges, holding that no Service Tax is chargeable on such amounts.

2. Revenue Neutrality on Service Tax Demand Regarding Commission

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal examined the principle of revenue neutrality as established in various precedents, including decisions in Jet Airways India Ltd., Jain Irrigation System Ltd., and Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. These cases establish that when the tax paid is available as credit to the assessee, the tax demand does not result in revenue loss to the government and thus may not be sustainable.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the commission received by the Appellant was an input service for which Cenvat credit was available. Therefore, any Service Tax paid on such commission was effectively neutralized by the credit mechanism. The Tribunal applied the ratio that where credit is available to the same entity, the demand is revenue neutral.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Appellant had Cenvat credit balances and had availed credit on Service Tax paid on commission. The Department did not dispute the availability of such credit.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle of revenue neutrality, concluding that the demand on commission was not sustainable as it did not result in net revenue loss.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department maintained the demand, but the Tribunal held that settled case law supports the Appellant's position.

Conclusion: The demand of Service Tax on commission was held to be a case of revenue neutrality and thus unsustainable.

3. Interest and Penalty

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides for penalty in cases of tax evasion or suppression. It also referred to multiple decisions including CCE, Pune Vs. Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., CCE & C. Vadodara-II Vs. Indeos Abs Ltd., Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, and M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. These decisions establish that if the tax demand itself is not sustainable, interest and penalty cannot be imposed.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Since the Tribunal held that the demand on cancellation charges and commission was not sustainable, the imposition of interest and penalty was also not justified. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty requires a willful misstatement or suppression, which was not found in this case.

Application of Law to Facts: The Appellant had disclosed all transactions honestly, and there was no evidence of suppression or collusion.

Conclusion: Interest and penalty imposed under Section 78 were set aside.

Significant Holdings:

"The amount collected towards cancellation charges does not represent 'consideration' received on account of provision of any service... Liquidated damages are not a consideration for contract of service but a compensation for breaking the contract."

"Consideration should flow at the desire of the promisor. Thus, if the consideration is not at the desire of the promisor, it ceases to be a consideration."

"Booking cancellation charges being in the nature of damages are not a consideration for the contract... Therefore, booking cancellation charges being in the nature of damages are not a consideration for the contract."

"The demand on commission is a revenue neutrality case and as such no demand is sustainable."

"Once demand is not sustainable, interest would not survive and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 would not be imposable."

The Tribunal conclusively held that the Service Tax demand on cancellation charges is unsustainable as these charges are compensatory damages and not consideration for services. The demand on commission is also unsustainable due to revenue neutrality, as the Appellant had availed Cenvat credit on the input services. Consequently, the interest and penalty imposed were also set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.

← Previous Next →