Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTMinimum Guaranteed off-take charges Is In The nature of Liquidated Damages, No...

Minimum Guaranteed off-take charges Is In The nature of Liquidated Damages, No GST Payable: AAR

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Tamil Nadu Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that Minimum Guaranteed Off-take (MGO) Charges is in the nature of Liquidated Damages and therefore is not liable to GST.

The bench of C. Thiyagarajan and B. Suseel Kumar has relied on the CBIC Circular No. 189/10/2022-GST dated 03-08-2022 which clarified that liquidated damages for breach of contract is not a consideration for tolerating an act and hence not a supply.

The Applicant, ONGC is a Maharatna Public Sector Enterprise, under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and is engaged in the supply of crude oil and natural gas. They have their establishments across onshore and offshore locations in India, where petroleum operations are carried out, to produce natural gas, for onward sale to various downstream customers in India.

The Applicant has entered into a Pan India Gas Sales and Transportation Agreement (GSTA) and has agreed to sell and deliver, APM (Administered Price Mechanism) and Non-APM Natural Gas produced from Government nominated fields, to GAIL.

The applicant sought the advance ruling on GST implications on the imposition of Minimum Guaranteed Off-take charges by the Applicant on GAIL.

The AAR held that  the amount of MGO charges which is paid as liquidated damages’ is an amount paid only to compensate for injury, loss or damage suffered by the applicant due to breach of contract and shall not be construed as the activity of refraining from or tolerating an act or to do anything. 

The AAR stated that MGO Charges are merely a flow of money from GAIL who causes breach of the contract to the applicant who suffers loss or damage due to such breach. The activity of the applicant would not fall within the scope of supply under Section 7(1A) of the Act, read with serial No. 5(e) of Schedule-II of the Act. Accordingly, such payments do not constitute consideration for a supply and are not taxable.

Ruling Details

Applicant’s Name: Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited

Ruling Date: 24/09/2025

Read More: Fly Ash Bricks Are Not Eligible For Exemption Or Reduced GST Rate: AAR

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Invoices, E-Way Bills Not Enough When Goods Don’t Match Records: GSTAT Restores ₹47.11 Lakh Tax And Penalty

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow State Bench, has restored a...

GST Penalty Can’t Rest Solely On Driver’s Claim Of Undeclared Loading Point: GSTAT 

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow, has dismissed a departmental appeal...

Excess Goods Can’t Justify GST Penalty On Entire Consignment Without Further Evidence: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Bench, has held that detection...

Areca Nut Case | Fake ITC And False Records Attract GST Penalties Despite Dropped Tax Demand: GSTAT 

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Bengaluru, has restored penalties against an...

More like this

Invoices, E-Way Bills Not Enough When Goods Don’t Match Records: GSTAT Restores ₹47.11 Lakh Tax And Penalty

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow State Bench, has restored a...

GST Penalty Can’t Rest Solely On Driver’s Claim Of Undeclared Loading Point: GSTAT 

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow, has dismissed a departmental appeal...

Excess Goods Can’t Justify GST Penalty On Entire Consignment Without Further Evidence: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Bench, has held that detection...