The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (GAAR) has held that compensation recovered by a company from transporters for losses arising during the transportation of goods does not constitute a taxable supply under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
The Authority concluded that such payments are in the nature of liquidated damages and merely compensate the recipient for losses suffered due to breach of contractual obligations, rather than being consideration for any supply of goods or services.
The advance ruling application was filed by a Gujarat-based company engaged in the trading and distribution of chemicals. The company sought an advance ruling on whether compensation received from transporters for shortages, leakages, contamination, damage, theft, delayed delivery, and other transit-related losses would amount to a supply of services under paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II read with Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Buy Now: June 2026 Ultimate Legal & Taxation Combo
The applicant explained that it regularly engages transporters for movement of chemicals from suppliers to its facilities, from its facilities to customers, and from ports to designated destinations. Owing to the nature of chemicals, certain unavoidable transit losses such as evaporation or minor weight variation are commercially accepted within agreed tolerance limits. However, where losses exceed those limits due to transporter negligence or contractual default, the company recovers compensation equivalent to the actual loss suffered.
The compensation is recovered in situations including material shortages, tanker leakages, deterioration in quality, contamination, rusting, theft, pilferage, destruction of goods, delayed deliveries, and negligent handling during loading or unloading. According to the applicant, these recoveries merely reimburse the actual value of damaged goods or the additional costs incurred for restoring or replacing them.
The company argued that these recoveries do not involve any independent supply of services because there is no agreement under which it agrees to tolerate any breach or perform any act in return for payment. Instead, the payments arise only after the transporter fails to perform contractual obligations properly.
Relying extensively on CBIC Circular No. 178/10/2022-GST dated 3 August 2022, the applicant submitted that liquidated damages paid solely to compensate for contractual breaches do not constitute consideration for a supply. The circular clarifies that where compensation merely flows from the party causing the breach to the party suffering loss, GST is not attracted because there is no separate contractual obligation to tolerate an act or refrain from doing something.
The applicant also cited several judicial precedents supporting the proposition that liquidated damages and compensatory payments are not taxable where they merely compensate an aggrieved party for contractual breaches.
During the proceedings, the Authority examined the transportation agreements entered into between the applicant and its transport contractors. Although the applicant initially stated that there was no formal agreement specifically governing compensation, the Authority observed that the transportation contracts themselves contained clauses providing for recovery of damages, deductions from freight bills, transporter liability for shortages, leakages, contamination, negligence, and transit losses.
The contracts specifically authorized the company to deduct from transporter payments amounts representing shortages, damages, quality issues, leakages, and third-party claims, while also making transporters liable for losses caused through negligence or mishandling.
The Authority also noted that the applicant had reversed the input tax credit relating to goods lost during transit and had issued or received appropriate credit notes wherever applicable, thereby ensuring compliance with GST provisions governing lost goods.
After analysing the contractual provisions, statutory framework, and CBIC circular, the Authority observed that the compensation recovered from transporters is purely compensatory in nature.
It held that the payments represent liquidated damages arising from breach of contractual obligations and are intended to make good the actual loss suffered by the applicant. They are neither consideration for tolerating an act nor payment for any independent service rendered by the applicant to the transporters.
The Authority further observed that the applicant is not agreeing to permit transporter defaults. Instead, the compensation clauses are intended to discourage non-performance and ensure compliance with contractual obligations. Therefore, the essential ingredients required to classify a transaction as a supply under paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II are absent.
The ruling also relied upon the CBIC clarification that liquidated damages paid solely for compensating contractual breaches constitute a mere flow of money and cannot be treated as consideration unless there exists an independent agreement under which one party agrees to tolerate an act, refrain from an act, or perform an act in return for payment.
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling ruled that compensation received by M/s. Pon Pure Chemical India Private Limited from transporters for transit losses, shortages, damage, contamination, theft, delays, or other contractual breaches does not amount to consideration for a supply of services under Section 7 read with paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, such compensation is not liable to GST, as it merely represents liquidated damages paid to compensate for actual losses arising from breach of contract rather than payment for any taxable supply.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
