Court :
AAR, Karnataka
Brief :
The AAR, Karnataka, in the case of M/s.Enzyme Business Centre [Advance Ruling No. DGR 33 of 2023 dated November 16, 2023],held that, the damages received by the Applicant from the tenant towards the termination of the sub-lease before the agreed upon lock-in period as per the sub-lease deed agreements tantamount to supply as per Section 7 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ("the CGST Act")and the amount received towards damages as per the settlement agreement is to be construed as Consideration for the supply. The services provided by the Applicant are classifiable under Chapter heading 9972 and are liable to GST at the rate of 18%.
Citation :
Advance Ruling No. DGR 33 of 2023 dated November 16, 2023
The AAR, Karnataka, in the case of M/s.Enzyme Business Centre [Advance Ruling No. DGR 33 of 2023 dated November 16, 2023],held that, the damages received by the Applicant from the tenant towards the termination of the sub-lease before the agreed upon lock-in period as per the sub-lease deed agreements tantamount to supply as per Section 7 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ("the CGST Act")and the amount received towards damages as per the settlement agreement is to be construed as Consideration for the supply. The services provided by the Applicant are classifiable under Chapter heading 9972 and are liable to GST at the rate of 18%.
M/s. Enzyme Business Centre ("the Applicant") is engaged in the sub-letting of commercial property on a rental basis.The Applicant obtained two different premises with two different landlords. Both the premises were further sub-let. Later, the tenants declared themselves incapable of continuing the contract before the lock-in period and requested for early termination of the rent agreement subject to payment of damages by the Lessee. Thereafter, the Applicant received the amount with respect to damages by forfeiture of interest free security deposit of INR 1,19,00,000/- and 16,00,00/-. Additionally, the tenant also paid INR 50,00,000/- from July, 2022 to January, 2023 with respect to damages in order to settle the contract.
In this regard, the Applicant filed an Advance Rulingfor the above transaction and contended that the amount received, and the amount forfeited are in the nature of liquidated damages for loss of rent and are in the nature of compensation for violation of the lock in period clause in the agreement. Hence, Circular No. 178/10/2022 dated August 3, 2022, is squarely applicablein this case as the lock-in clause arises out of the primary rental contract and is only a compensatory clauseand no GST is applicable.
Whether the amount received for the early termination of the contract before lock in period by tenant will constitute consideration for the supply. If yes, what is the SAC code and rate of GST?
The AAR, Karnataka in Advance Ruling No. DGR 33 of 2023 held as under: