Held - These damages are claimed by the applicant from the contractee due to the delays in making available possession of site, drawings & other schedules by the contractee beyond the milestones fixed for completion of project. These damages are consideration for tolerating an act or a situation arising out of the contractual obligation.

Further Section 2(31)(b) of the CGST Act mentions that consideration in relation to the supp.....

Held - The applicant has submitted that cancellation charges collected from the passengers may be shared with the owners or drivers. The activity of tolerating the cancellation by the applicant for a consideration is supply of service by virtue of clause (e) of para 5 of Schedule II of CGST Act, 2017 and attracts GST at 18 %.

Held - The applicant has submitted that cancellationcharges collected from the passengers may be shared with the owners or drivers. We find that  the activity of tolerating the cancellation by the applicant for aconsideration is supply of service by virtue of clause (e) of para 5 of Schedule II of CGST Act, 2017 and attracts GST at 18 %.

Held - The issue that arose for consideration in Lemon Tree Hotel Hotel was whether forfeiture of the amount received by a hotel from a customer on cancellation of the booking would be leviable to service tax under section 66E(e). The Tribunal held that the retention of the amount on cancellation would not attract service tax under section 66E (e)

A Division Bench of the Tribunal in K.N. Food Industries examined the.....

Held - The appellant has stated that the amount of JPY 130,000,000/- was paid to compensate for the work undertaken by Honda Japan towards the commencement of volume production of the new Honda CIVIC Model and details have also been provided, which details clearly indicate that the amount was paid to compensate Honda Japan for the research and allied work it had performed at its end and not towards supply of any technical information to the ap.....

Held - We also find that the all payments have been received towards the compensation for non performance of contract and the same will not be within the definition of Section 66 E (e) of the Act, which is for obligation to refrain from the Act or to tolerate and act of situation by the service provider. The Appellant has not provided any service as the Development Agreement itself has been cancelled. So, there is no question of any liability .....