 The jurisprudence to handle litigation is always an interesting facet for any student of law or a lawyer asset. And as they say that taxing as well as the field of GST itself is quite taxing. But how do you handle such litigations is one of the topics for today which we are taking in two parts with Advocate Vinesh Raab, who is otherwise also a chartered accountant, but he is primarily practicing and his field towards the indirect taxation he has created his own niche. And he's also started one series with the which is also available on the YouTube. We requested him to share his knowledge and this particular session we will be taking up in two parts. And I request Mr. Vinay to tell as to how this part will be divided or do you win a and thank you to all those participants who are watching us live on the YouTube, as well as on this zoom meeting or do you. Thank you because he I'm really grateful to you for giving me this opportunity. So, I will just give a brief introduction of what I intend to discuss in. Can you allow me to share the PPT please. Yes, so I just want to give a brief background of our introduction of what I wish to discuss over another say next two or three sessions. We all know is a amalgamation of the else while indirect tax various taxes tax laws, like central excise act central sales tax act, value added tax act service tax act. So, a lot of jurisprudence is hidden in the as well regime, which is going to be very very useful to handle the litigation which is going to arise in the future in the GST era. As of now, the litigation which is there in the GST era has all been artificial intelligence based varying through through the analysis of the data. The department is able to unearth some evasion of tax through fraudulent means. But the litigation which arises out of the audit, where in you see a lot of litigation arises around the interpretation of the law. So those litigation has not yet arose. They are going to arise very soon because now the audit has started and a large amount of notices have already been issued. And in future another say six months or so, I expect that further notices will be issued and a lot of litigation will revolve around the interpretation of the law and not with respect to the evasion, which arises out of the fraudulent conduct of the parties. So, in these two or three sessions, my focus would be on discussing or analyzing the very fundamental principles with respect to levy of GST. So that whatever disputes or litigation which is going to arise out of the fundamentals of the GST law, we learn and we decode and we handle the litigation which is going to arise in the future. In a tax law, there are three essential, there are three fundamental essential in order to levy a tax. First of all, there must be a charging section and a taxable event and any activity in order to be chargeable to tax must satisfy the definition of the taxable event. Secondly, there must be competition provisions in order to enable the computation of the taxable value. Because GST is a levy on a transaction to transaction, so we must be able to ascertain the taxable value of a transaction in order to levy tax. Third, we must apply the taxable value to the rate of tax and in order to determine the rate of tax, it is necessary that the goods are classified in the proper chapter heading. Because in the GST, the classification is dependent on the harmonized system of nomenclature. Each and every item of goods is classified under 98 chapters and under those chapters they are further heading and subheadings. So one has to look into the heading and try to ascertain what is the item and where under which chapter heading it falls. And once you ascertain the chapter heading only then you can determine what is the rate applicable to that chapter heading. We will go into the discussion of classification in the next session. Today, we are going to analyze and discuss the very fundamental of the levy of tax which is supply of goods. The GST is leviable on any supply of goods. So the taxable event in the GST era is supply of goods. In the service tax regime, it was provision of service. In the sales tax or the VAT, it was sale of goods. In central excise, it was manufactured. So now all these laws have been amalgamated and now we have a single taxable event which is called supply. So now let us have a look at what is the supply of goods and what are the various facets of the definition of supply. And we are going to dissect the various aspects of the definition of supply and I will be discussing the various disputes which may arise out of the very fundamental concept of supply or the taxable event. So section 7-1 clause A of the GST Act provides that the supply means all forms of supply of goods or services such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, license, rental, lease or disposal. So we are going to discuss the various aspects of this particular part of the supply that is what is the meaning of the sale, transfer, barter, exchange or disposal at one place. And then we are going to discuss the other aspect which is license, rental and lease. Further we are going to also analyze the meaning of the word consideration and also what is the meaning of in the course or furtherance of business. Because a sale, transfer or barter, it should be made or agreed to be made for a consideration and then it should be in the course or furtherance of the business. So it is very essential for us to know three things that what is the meaning of the goods or service, what is the meaning of sale, transfer, barter, exchange, lease or disposal, then and what is the meaning of the in the course or furtherance of business. So we are going to today I mean focus our discussion on these aspects of the taxable event that is called supply. Now the sale of goods is not defined in the GST Act. But in the common law or in the sale of goods act, the one of the very essential ingredient of sale of goods that it should be between two parties by virtue of an agreement and it should result into transfer of title in the property of the goods. So this is very very important that the contract is entered into for the purpose of transfer of title in the goods. Even in the case of disposal, it should result into transfer of title in the goods to other person. So suppose the goods are just thrown away and disposed just like that, disposed as a scrap or any waste material, which does not fetch any value or consideration and it is the title is not transferred to another person, then it would not result into a taxable event of supply. Similarly, in the case of a exchange also it must result into transfer in the property in the goods to another person. In the exchange or the barter, it may be that there is no exchange of the goods or services. There is no consideration passed on in form of the money, but nevertheless there is a transfer of property from one person to another. Similarly, in the case of transfer also, it is necessary that there is a transfer of title in the property in the goods. Now the transfer may be a compulsory acquisition by the government also, but even then it will fall within the definition of the supply and be chargeable to tax. Now another important aspect or the facet of the definition of supply is goods. So it is essential for us to understand what is the meaning of the goods and what sort of dispute which may arise around the definition or the meaning of the goods and what sort of dispute had arose in the past in the as well era of indirect accession. So first of all, let us look at the meaning of the goods. It says that it means every kind of movable property other than money and securities, but it includes actionable claim, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land, which is agreed to be severe for supply or under a contract of supply. So first fundamental concept is that every movable property, every movable property other than money and securities is goods. So one may ask a question whether even the intangible things, for example, software or say these scripts, various types of scripts which are issued within the purview of foreign trade policies which are freely transferable, whether they satisfy the definition of the goods. So in this context, there have been various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court in the context of sale tax, service tax and central excise. And in one such case, the honorable Supreme Court stated that in order for a property to become the goods, it is enough if it has the attributes of utility, it is capable of being bought and sold and capable of being transferred, delivered, stored and possess. So if these conditions are satisfied, then it will be considered as goods. It is immaterial whether it is incorporeal, corporal, tangible or intangible. As long as they are deliverable and they are being capable of being transferred, they have some utility and they are capable of being bought and sold, it will fall within the purview of the definition of goods. Then there have been various judgments with respect to various intangible items to be considered as goods. For example, copyright, sale of a copyright has been considered to be goods and therefore, accessible to service tax. Then technical drawings have also been considered to be goods. Transfer of right to use trademark has been considered to be goods. Master copies of films and songs have been considered to be goods. Then DPP licenses, which are issued under the foreign trade policy, they have been considered to be goods. So all these UC examples I have cited because many a times there is a sale of these intangible items and one wonders whether they fall within the definition of the goods and whether they are services or what and whether they are at all liable to tax in the first place. So we already have the jurisprudence in the as well era, which says that all these items, whether it is a software or copyright and all these things, even though they are intangibles, they very much satisfy the definition of the goods. Another gray area which often arises and leads to some sort of a dispute and which we will further discuss as to how and why it is important to understand this particular concept is, plant and machinery. Many a times plant and machinery are embedded to the earth. So the question arises is whether they are immobile property or whether they are goods because obviously if there is a transaction of sale of an immobile property, then it does not fall within the purview of the goods and services tax. Only if there is a transaction of sale of goods or services, only then it falls within the purview of the exigibility of GST, otherwise not. So there may be a situation where you see a plant and machinery is assembled and attached to the earth and if it is attached to the earth, then there are tests which have been laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time and which says that if the attachment to the earth lead to a permanency and it cannot be detached from the earth to which it is attached or the foundation to which it is attached. Without demolition or damage, then it should be considered as immobile property. But if it is attached to the earth by merely nut and bolts in order to ensure a oval-free operation, then it does not assume the character of immobile property. So it is very important for us to understand this concept in the various contexts which I am going to discuss further that whether a installation of plant or machinery leads to immobile property or whether it is considered to be goods. Now, one of the questions which arises is whether if suppose there is a sale of business itself along with all the plant and machinery stock and everything, then whether such a sale of business itself, suppose there are various divisions or units of a company, one is manufacturing chemicals, one is manufacturing textile, one is manufacturing cement or say one of the business is hyped up and one of the unit is transferred lock, stock and barrel which is called a lump sum sale rather rather in the context of the income tax act. Whether it can be considered to be liable to GST in the purview of the and covered within the purview of the goods in the first place, because first of all it must satisfy the definition of the goods. So if the whole of the business is transferred, whether it can satisfy the definition of the goods or whether it can be called a service in the first place. So there have been judgments of the Supreme Court which says that if the whole of the business is transferred along with the plant and machinery embedded to the earth and such transfer takes place through a converse, then it cannot be said that there is a sale of goods. It is nothing but the transaction of in totality where the entire plant and machinery which has a corrector of immoral property sold along with say stock and everything and if such a transaction takes place then it cannot be said that there is a sale of goods. So since it does not satisfy the definition of goods itself, so it cannot be chargeable to GST in the, therefore it cannot satisfy the definition of supply and therefore it cannot be accessible to GST also. A similar judgment is there of the Honourable Elawa the High Court also which said that since business is not goods, so even though along with the sale of the business, there is some transfer of the stock and trade also, but since separate assessment of the value of the stock cannot be asserted in a lump sum transaction of a sale of business. So therefore you cannot separate the value of the stock from the sale of the business and levy tax on the stock portion of it. So it was held that sale of business is not goods, so therefore it cannot be accessible to tax. Now another issue which may arise is that in the GST era since goods and services are both covered within the purview of the goods and services tax and the definition of service says that whatever is not goods is service. So one may argue that the sale of business, okay fine there are judgment which says that it is not goods, but can it not be said that it is sale of service. Now there are no judgments on that aspect and one may argue this way or that way, but fortunately in the GST even if it is considered as a service. It says that there is an entry 2 of the notification 12 2017 which grants an exemption in respect of transfer of a going concern as a whole or independent part there. So if a transfer of a unit or an undertaking takes place as a going concern then the GST itself grants exemption to it even if it is considered as service. So one aspect is that transfer of business as a whole is not goods in the first place so the question of levy of tax does not arise at all. But suppose if it is considered as a service even then if it is a transfer as a going concern then it is exempted from the purview of levy of GST. Now one may ask as to what is the meaning of the transfer as a going concern. Now on this aspect there have been judgments of the various high court in different context within the purview of different laws. So I am going to discuss some of those judgments. In one of the Bombay High Court judgment it was held that in order to characterize a business as a going concern. It is necessary that at the time of the transfer it must be a running business and how to determine whether it is a running business. One of the test one which can one of the test to determine is whether a signing or the transfer is in a position to carry on the business which was being carried not previously. So one may look into whether there is a stocking trade because if you have to carry on the business as it was being carried on by your previous owner. There must be stocking trade, there must be plant and machinery which must be in existence and they must be operational. So all those aspects combined together one may determine whether it is a going concern or not. So obviously it will depend from the facts of a case one has to look into whether the plant and machinery are functional, whether the stocking trade is there and whether the business can be carried on as it was being carried on by the previous owner. Now another aspect which was covered by the Delhi High Court is that it is essential that whether the plant and machinery and the manpower so one of the additional criteria which was added by the Delhi High Court that whether the plant and machinery and the manpower without which it would not be possible to continue it is an independent unit are transferred to the Demerge company. So those aspects also one may look into that the people for those were main key management or the operational staff they are also transferred along with the unit or not. Now Supreme Court in another aspect laid down another criteria to determine whether a transfer is going concern or not by stating that one must check whether there is a transfer of liability also because assets are transferred but if the liability is not transferred then it cannot be said that the company has been sold off as a going concern. So along with the asset of the company the liability also must be transferred but the Delhi High Court distinguished this particular judgment in a subsequent judgment of 2016 and said that suppose some assets or properties are left out which can cause inconvenience to or trouble to the buying party then one may exclude it and still it can be held or said that it is transfer as a going concern. So it is not necessary that each and every assets and liabilities are transferred some of it suppose some machinery has become obsolete and the buyer chooses not to buy it. And the seller takes it out and dispose of dispose it himself or suppose some part of the liability which suppose it has been taken at a very high rate of interest and the buyer says that I am not going to take it over. So there can be some adjustment but suppose the major assets which are necessary to continue it as a going concern or the major liabilities are not taken over then it will not be possible to consider it as a going concern. Now similar judgment of Karnataka High Court is there then one may retain certain liabilities while transferring the business. Then another judgment in this context is of Bombay High Court which said that even if there is a sale of assets and liabilities as a whole and at a lump sum amount. But suppose in order to just for the accounting purpose the values are assigned to land on building it will not make it outside the definition of the slum sale. So it may be only accounting exercise to identify the value but if it is sold as a lump sum then it will be considered as a sale of business if the items are not sold item by item. So if there is no itemized sale and the sale of business as a whole is being done then it will still be considered as a sale of business even though separate values are assigned. Now another issue which I wanted to discuss which is going to create some sort of litigation in the time to come and which is essential for us to understand is what happens to the free supply by the contracting. We know that in various major contracts whether it is a government contract or whether it is a construction or installation of or say execution of big projects of say installation or installation of plant and machinery. Often it happens that the some of the items which are items of high value and where in the contractee which says to have some control over the quality of the material supplied. They supplied free of cost to the contractor. Then the question arises and this question has arose in the past in the context of the sale tax era whether such free supply will be liable to tax or not. So it was held by the honorable Supreme Court in the context of the sale tax act that suppose one has entered into a composite contract for supply of labor as well as material. The buyer or the contractor in order to have a control over the quality of the material supplies the goods free of cost to the contractor. And the contractor raises a invoice of labor plus material and while making payment to the contractor the contractor deducts the value of the material supplied free of cost. In such a scenario it was said that there will be a transfer of property of the goods and therefore to the contractor and therefore the value of material which is supplied free of cost by the contractor to the contractor will be considered to be against the consideration of the supply of the service of the labor. So it is a kind of a barter where the laborer is giving the supply of the labor and in such a scenario it will be liable to sales tax. So in the GST also suppose a composite contract is entered into where the responsibility of supply of material is of the contractor. But eventually the contractor chooses to supply it free of cost to the contractor in order to ensure or to have control of the quality or other uninterrupted work. And the value of such material supplied free of cost is detected from the invoice of the contractor. Then it will be chargeable to GST. At both the ends the contractor will also levy GST which will be admissible as input tax credit to the contractor and contractor will also include the value of material in his invoice and levy or bid GST. Now the other important facet of the definition of supply as I was discussing is the meaning of the term business because it is essential that the supply or the sale barter exchange of the goods must be incidental or in the course or furtherance of the business. So what is the meaning of the term business in the first place? The business is defined in section 2 subsection 17 of the GST Act which says that any trade commerce manufacturer, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity whether or not it is for a pecuniary benefit is business. Then it says that any activity or transaction in connection with or incidental to above that is any activity is incidental or incidental to trade commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, etc is also an activity of business. Then thirdly it says that it is immaterial whether there is a volume frequency continuity or regularity of such transaction. Now I will discuss the various issues which has arose in the past, in the erstwhile era in the context of such a definition of business. Now the first issue which I would like to discuss is that what happens if the activity is charitable in nature but there is a sale and purchase taking place from such charitable in the course of such charitable activity. Then whether such a charitable activity can be considered to be a business. For example, there was a dispute which arose between the sale tax authority and the Sai Publication Fund which was a charitable organization and the main objective of the existence of this particular organization or the trust was to spread the message of the saint Sai Baba. This particular trust was not formed for the purpose of business but in the course of spreading the message of the saint Sai Baba the particular trust was selling literature, books and other materials. So the question arose whether this sale of the literature and the books can be considered to be a business and whether it can be accessible to sales tax. So it was held by the honorable Supreme Court that the sale of the material or the books or the literature for the purpose of the spreading of the message of the Sai Baba is incidental or ancillary to such an activity and therefore it cannot be considered to be a business. So if your main activity is not business in the first place then even if some suppose some sale or transfer or barter or exchange is taking place in the course of such activity which is the ancillary activity to such an activity then it cannot be considered to be a business. So therefore it cannot be liable to GST. Now we will discuss the various issues relating to business or the various activities. One such activity is education. The honorable Supreme Court has held in the past that it cannot be said that the distinct objective and the purpose of the education is trade or business or calling or service even though this judgment was in the context of the industrial dispute act. And recently there is a very recent judgment of the honorable Supreme Court also November 2022 judgment where in the dispute arose between the Narayana Magical College and the state of Madhya Pradesh and the honorable Supreme Court says that the education is not business to earn profit and tuition fees should always be affordable. Now in this background we may analyze and see whether the various activity now we all know that there are various private colleges there are various private institutions and many schools which imparts education but now the education has become a full-fledged business. There are many who even though have incorporated in the form of a trust but they charge hefty fees and it appears that the entire activity is with a profit motive. So the question arises that whether it will be or whether it should be chargeable to tax a levy of GST or not. Now in this context fortunately we have now the education is not defined in the CG STI. So first of all I think it would be safe to rely upon the meaning assigned to the activity of educators per se in different context as has been held by the Supreme Court. Now whether it is with the profit motive or not I believe that it cannot be looked into if education cannot in the first place satisfy the definition of the business itself which is trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, so if the education cannot be considered to be falling within the purview of any of these activities that is trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation or adventure then it goes out of the purview of the definition of business itself and therefore it goes out of the purview of the GST also. But having said that the GST even though it has not defined the word education but it makes a distinction between the education which is the core education and the education which is known core education. So there is an exemption notification 11 2017 which grants exemption to certain educational activity. For example services provided by educational institution to its student, faculty and staff is exempt then transportation of student, faculty and staff is exempt further catering including any midday meals scheme is sponsored by the central government, state government is exempt. Then security or cleaning or housekeeping services performed in such educational institution is exempt. Services relating to admission or conduct of examination is exempt. Now all these things are exempt provided it is a services provided by educational institution. Now the question arises as to what is the meaning of educational institution. Now educational institution has been defined to be services by way of pre school education and education up to higher secondary education school. Education as a part of the curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognized by law and education as a part of an approved vocational education course. So if it is a pre education or education up to higher secondary school, then irrespective of what kind of fees is being charged by a school, it is exempt. Secondly, if it is education as a part of a curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognized by law, then also it is exempt. So now being recognized by law means it should be suppose a degree, it should lead to be a degree or diploma recognized by law. But this many of these private institutes which grant some sort of a diploma without any approval of law or the training given in a private coaching institutes. They will not consider to be education within the purview of the educational institution and therefore the services provided by such private coaching institutes or those institutions which are not providing a degree or diploma recognized by law. They will as per the GST at this particular notification, it will not be exempt. But having said that one may stretch the meaning of the education beyond the purview of what this exemption notification says. And if one relies upon the manner in which the term education is defined by the various high schools, then one may try to counter the argument of the department that education if it is not recognized by law or education if it is not leading to a degree or diploma would not be part, would be within the purview of the definition of the supply. Because one may very well argue that since the education does not satisfy the definition of the business itself and irrespective of the fact whether such education is leading to a degree or diploma, but if it can satisfy the very purpose and objective of the definition of the education then it should fall outside the purview of the definition of business itself. Now there have been various judgments in the various contexts. For example, it has been held that IIT is not a dealer at its principal activities academic, then Institute of Chartered Accountant of India was held to be with the purpose of regulating chartered accountancy and therefore it was held that the conducting extensive educational programs, coaching classes, campus placement, etc. cannot be considered as a business and therefore it cannot be considered to be carrying on any business trade or commerce. Then sale of publication by university is not a business. Then it has been held that the charitable organization running medical store and selling medicine cannot be said to be for the purpose of business and therefore cannot be said to be liable to GST. Now one may look at it from other angle also. For example, one may argue that suppose I am in the business of trading of a particular item. For example, say oil and incidentally it so happened that I sell some scrap material or the other some material at a cost price or less than cost price whether it can be said to be active within the course or furtherance of business or whether it can be considered to be liable to GST. Now in this context there have been judgment of the Supreme Court which says that the scrap material or any other item is sold by a business entity. Then it will be said to be an activity incidental to carrying on the business and therefore it will fall within the purview of the definition of business and liable to sales tax. Now one of the area which I believe is very important from the planning perspective is the works contract. Now works contract as we understood in the H.Y. era wherein the works contract was defined as a transaction which was a combined or composite transaction. So if there was a composite transaction of supply of goods as well as services then it was considered to be works contract. Now in the H.Y. era the service part of it got taxed under the service tax and the sale of goods part of it got taxed under the VATAC or the central sales tax act. Now under the GST to make the life easier now the definition of the works contract is restricted to those type of contracts which are composite contracts for supply of labour as well as material. But there must those contracts only those contracts will be considered as works contract where the activity is in relation to immobile property. So if a works contract is there in the context of a movable property then it will not be a works contract. For example suppose a installation of machinery takes place and that machinery which is being installed does not result into a permanent structure it cannot be considered as a immobile property then it will not fall within the purview of the works contract because it is not leading to immobile property. As I discussed earlier as to whether what is goods and in that context we just discussed a judgment that if you are installing a machinery and it is permanently embedded to earth and it cannot be dismantled without substantial damage only then it can be said to be immobile property. But if the support it is installed through a network system and it can be easily dismantled and removed and installed in some other place then it will be considered as a immobile property. So while trying to understand whether a composite transaction is a goods or whether it is a works contract or not it is very much essential to understand that jurisprudence and apply to any transaction. Now works contract is chargeable to 18% of tax because works contract is deemed to be a service. You see there is a schedule to GST act which deems some transaction either as a sale of goods or sale of service in order to find out what is the rate of tax applicable to such a transaction. So with respect to works contract it is deemed to be a service and works contract is generally available to 18% of tax. Now if the plant or machinery or the material involved in the execution of works contract are more than 18% then one would be very happy to get it classified as a works contract. For example if suppose somebody is installing or constructing a factory where in the major raw material is cement and the steam and cement is chargeable to tax at the rate of 28%. So if it gets classified as a works contract and it results into say immobile property then one would be very happy to get it classified as a works contract. But suppose there is a transaction wherein suppose the rate of tax is less the item is such that the rate of tax on the plant and machinery being supplied is less than 18%. For example say solar equipments now on the solar equipment the rate of tax is less than 18%. So if you are suppose you are constructing a solar plant which results into immobile property then if it gets classified as a works contract then the rate of tax which you have to eventually pay will be more than the rate of tax which is applicable on the supply of solar equipment. So in such a scenario what should one do? In such a scenario one should take advantage of the judgments in the HYL era which has held that if you enter into two separate contracts then they will be treated separately and they will be accessible to tax as a separate contracts. But only if there is a composite contract they will be treated as a works contract. So if suppose you have a transaction in hand wherein the rate of tax on the items being supplied is less than 18% then it is advisable to enter into two separate contracts one for sale of material another for sale of labour. Now the sale of material suppose the solar equipments the rate of tax is 5%. So you end up paying only 5% rate of tax whereas on the installation part of which only comprises of the labour part you pay 18% tax. So one can very well structure agreements like that or one can even enter into agreement whereby you see the items which are attracting less rate of tax they are excluded separately and those items which are having more rate of tax a 28% supply of cement they are categorized in the installation contract and you get the benefit of 18% rate of tax. So therefore I was saying that it is very much essential to know the jurisprudence in the HYL era not only to handle litigation but also to structure your transaction or plan your transaction in such a way that you don't evade the tax but at the same time get benefited by suitable planning. Now in this slide there are judgments again which defines as to in what scenario a plant and machinery will be considered as a movable or movable goods. Now the another area of litigation or the dispute within the purview of the definition of supply is going to be an item which is considered as a supply in schedule 2 of the GSTF. It says that the agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act or to tolerate an act or a situation or to do an act is a service. So if you agree to refrain from an act you agree that you will not do such a thing or you tolerate an act or a situation. Then it is considered to be deemed to be service and it is liable to GST within entry 5 E of the schedule 2 of the GSTF. Similar activity was considered as a declared service within section 66 E of the finance act. Now there are various judgments and the various dispute which arose within the scope of the definition of this particular toleration of an act or restraining from an act. So I am going to discuss some of the scenarios for example amount collected by the by a appellant by encasement of a bank guarantee cannot was said to be not tolerating an act and therefore cannot be considered to be service. Similarly in one of the very recent judgment of the Kolkata Tribunal it has been held that the surrendering of tenancy right cannot be considered as an obligated to refrain or tolerate an act and taxed as a declared services. Now the another issue which frequently arises in commercial transaction is that invariably the transaction or the contracts are structured in such a manner that if either party defaults in compliance of the conditions of the contract then they are supposed to pay some sort of a penalty or to be considered to be liquidated damage or compensation to the other party who suffers there who suffers due to the violation of the terms of the act. And even if suppose the contract is cancelled unilaterally by either party then one may then the either party may be entitled to compensate the other party. What happens to this compensation or liquidated damage or whether they can be considered to be obligation to tolerate an act. So in this context there have been various judgments of the tribunal which which has held that amount recovered as a liquidated damages cannot be said to be towards provision of any service. As nobody is going to tolerate the non-compliance of the terms of an agreement such in such a clause is inserted into the agreement in order to prohibit the other side to not to default. The purpose is not to tolerate such a act and therefore such liquidated damage or compensation etc cannot be said to be tolerated on act and therefore they cannot be chargeable to tax. As of now in the GST context there has not been any judgment but there have been very number of judgments in the context of the service tax act and which which can be very useful for us. If any such dispute arises in the context of GST act which I am very sure are going to arise. Yes, Vikas ji. Yeah, just close this. Hello. Just close the PPT. Yes. We have the participants we can see if any part any of the participants wants to ask a question. Otherwise we have already explained it in an elucidated manner I was just checking it on the YouTube. There was no question. Right. But be that as if somebody has a question. You can answer it later on. And we will take the part to those who have been connected for the first thing they can stay connected with us on the social media. And we'll let you know about the second webinar part two of this series. Thank you everyone. Stay safe. Stay blessed. Thank you very much.