Notice Pay and Employee Bond Amount Not Taxable as Service: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh has held that amounts recovered by an employer from employees in the form of notice pay or bond money for leaving the job prematurely cannot be treated as consideration for a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. The bench of S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that when an employee leaves employment abruptly and pays notice pay, the employer cannot be said to have provided any service by “tolerating” the employee’s act. Instead, the payment merely compensates the employer for the sudden exit and disruption caused. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles and their components, employs professionals across various roles. As part of employment contracts, employees are required to serve a notice period before leaving the organization. In cases where employees exit without serving the stipulated notice period, they are required to pay “notice pay” to compensate the company. Similarly, in situations where employees undergo specialized training sponsored by the company, they execute a bond agreement requiring them to serve the organization for a minimum period. If they leave before completing this tenure, they must pay “bond money.” Initially, the company treated such receipts as taxable and paid service tax. However, after reviewing the legal position, Maruti Suzuki concluded that these recoveries were not taxable as services and subsequently filed refund claims totaling over ₹1.08 crore for the period from July 2012 to March 2017. The tax authorities rejected the refund claims, arguing that these amounts represented consideration for tolerating an act or situation, which was a declared service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. Maruti Suzuki contended that payments such as notice pay and bond recoveries are compensation for breach of employment conditions rather than payment for any service rendered by the employer. The company relied on several judicial precedents, including a judgment of the Madras High Court in GE T&D India Ltd., which held that such payments are not related to the provision of any service. It was further argued that the issue had already been decided in the company’s favour by the department itself for a later period, and the refund for that period had been sanctioned. The company also cited government circulars clarifying that forfeiture of salary or payment of bond amounts when an employee leaves before the agreed period does not constitute a taxable supply under GST, which is similarly worded to the earlier service tax provision. The issue raised was whether recovery of notice pay and bond money could be treated as a declared service involving an obligation to tolerate an act. The Tribunal noted that courts have consistently held that such payments are not consideration for a service, but rather compensation for breach or non-performance of contractual obligations. The bench also cited earlier tribunal decisions holding that recoveries such as bond amounts or forfeiture of salary are penal or deterrent in nature, intended to discourage employees from leaving prematurely, and therefore cannot be treated as taxable services. Concluding that the issue is well settled in favour of the taxpayer, the Tribunal ruled that service tax cannot be levied on notice pay or bond money recovered from employees. Accordingly, CESTAT allowed Maruti Suzuki’s appeals and granted the company consequential relief, including refund of the service tax paid, in accordance with law. Case Details Case Title: M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-Delhi-iv Citation: JURISHOUR-287-CES-2026(CHAN) Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 60548 of 2016 Date: 09.03.2026 Counsel For Appellant: Krati Singh and Shri Monarch Mittal, Advocates Counsel For Respondent: Narinder Singh and Shri Yashpal Singh, Authorized Representatives Click Here To Read Order Read More: Multimodal Logistics Services Not ‘Cargo Handling Service’: CESTAT

Notice Pay and Employee Bond Amount Not Taxable as Service: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

From Seizing/freezing to forfeiture: Unmasking Section 68J of NDPS Act

Karnataka High Court Quashes Dismissal of Central Tax Superintendent in Red Sanders Valuation Case

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 23 May, 2026

Whether Revisional Order Beyond S. 108 Limitation Is Valid? Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief to IndiGo in GST Refund Dispute

More like this

From Seizing/freezing to forfeiture: Unmasking Section 68J of NDPS Act

Karnataka High Court Quashes Dismissal of Central Tax Superintendent in Red Sanders Valuation Case

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 23 May, 2026

About us

Company

Categories