The Bombay High Court has decisively held that payment of damages pursuant to an arbitral award, even when accompanied by a settlement agreement to withdraw foreign enforcement proceedings, does not constitute a supply of service under the CGST Act. This landmark ruling quashes a Rs.1,524 crore GST demand against Tata Sons, affirming that judicially awarded compensation for breach of contract cannot be taxed as consideration for toleration or forbearance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a shareholder agreement dated 25 March 2009 between Tata Sons Private Limited (Tata) and NTT Docomo Inc. (Docomo), a Japanese company, concerning their joint venture in Tata Teleservices Limited (TTSL). The agreement included performance benchmarks (Key Performance Indicators) in Schedules 7 and 8. When TTSL failed to meet the Second KPIs, Docomo triggered Clause 5.7.2 of the Shareholders Agreement, requiring Tata to either find a buyer for Docomo’s 26% stake or purchase it itself. Tata was unable to comply, leading to a dispute.
Key Facts
- Docomo initiated arbitration before the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) on 3 January 2015.
- The LCIA Arbitral Tribunal delivered an unanimous award on 22 June 2016, awarding Docomo:
- Damages: USD 1,172,137,717
- Interest: USD 65,276,963
- Arbitration costs: GBP 119,012.59
- Legal costs: JPY 1,067,670,175
- Docomo filed enforcement proceedings in the UK, USA, and India.
- On 28 April 2017, the Delhi High Court, in proceedings under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, declared the award enforceable as a deemed decree.
- Tata deposited Rs. 8,450 crores with the Delhi High Court Registry on 29 July 2016.
- The parties filed Consent Terms before the Delhi High Court on 25 February 2017, which were recorded in the Court’s order dated 28 April 2017.
- Clause 7 of the Consent Terms provided that Tata would suspend all enforcement proceedings initiated by Docomo in the UK and USA for a six-month period (Suspension Period). Upon receipt of the award amount, Docomo agreed to unconditionally withdraw all such proceedings.
- Docomo received the full award amount on 30 October 2017 and 7 November 2017.
- On 25 September 2017, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) initiated an inquiry into whether the payment attracted Service Tax.
- DGGI issued an Intimation under Form DRC-01A on 28 September 2022, demanding IGST of Rs.1,524,35,20,405/- on the ground that Docomo’s agreement to withdraw foreign proceedings constituted a supply of service under Entry 5(e) of Schedule II to the CGST Act.
- On 26 July 2023, a Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, reiterating the same demand.
Procedural History
- 25 March 2009: Shareholders Agreement executed between Tata and Docomo.
- 3 January 2015: Docomo files request for arbitration with LCIA.
- 22 June 2016: LCIA Arbitral Tribunal delivers award.
- 29 July 2016: Tata deposits Rs. 8,450 crores with Delhi High Court Registry.
- 25 February 2017: Consent Terms filed before Delhi High Court.
- 28 April 2017: Delhi High Court passes order declaring award enforceable and recording Consent Terms.
- 25 September 2017: DGGI issues inquiry letter seeking documents related to payment.
- 10 October 2017: Tata’s CFO appears before DGGI and submits documents.
- 30 October 2017 & 7 November 2017: Docomo receives full payment of award amount.
- 15 November 2017: DGGI rejects Tata’s contention that no Service Tax is payable.
- 27 December 2019: Tata files representation with CBIC seeking clarification on GST applicability.
- 19 August 2019: DGGI seeks further details on payment dates and bank records.
- 15 February 2022: DGGI informs Tata that the payment attracts GST under CGST Act.
- 28 September 2022: Intimation under Form DRC-01A issued demanding IGST of Rs.1,524,35,20,405/-.
- 6 October 2022: Tata requests extension to respond.
- 3 August 2022: CBIC Circular No. 178/10/2022 issued clarifying that damages are not taxable.
- 28 February 2023: CBIC Circular No. 214/1/2023 reiterated the position.
- 26 July 2023: Show Cause Notice issued under Section 74(1) of CGST Act.
- 30 March 2023: Bombay High Court directs Tata to appear before DGGI without prejudice.
- 31 May 2023: Tata files detailed reply to DRC-01A.
- 6 June 2023: Bombay High Court directs DGGI to grant personal hearing and decide within three weeks.
- 7 July 2023: Bombay High Court directs DGGI to dispose of matter within three weeks.
- 28 March 2023: Writ Petition No. 4914 of 2022 filed before Bombay High Court.
- 30 April 2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
Tata’s Position: The payment of damages was judicial compensation for breach of contract, not consideration for any service. Docomo’s agreement to withdraw foreign proceedings was a natural consequence of the award’s satisfaction, not an independent contractual obligation. The demand violates CBIC Circulars No. 178/2022 and No. 214/2023, which explicitly exclude damages from GST. The action is without jurisdiction and violates principles of natural justice.
Respondents’ Position: Docomo’s agreement to suspend and withdraw enforcement proceedings in the UK and USA constituted a supply of service under Entry 5(e) of Schedule II to the CGST Act. The Consent Terms created a new, independent obligation for which consideration (the award amount) was paid. The circulars are not binding on adjudicating officers and do not override statutory provisions.
Relief Sought
Tata sought:
- Quashing of the Intimation under Form DRC-01A dated 28 September 2022.
- Quashing of the Show Cause Notice dated 26 July 2023.
- A writ of prohibition restraining respondents from enforcing the demand.
- A writ of mandamus directing withdrawal of the notices.
- Declaration that Section 7 read with Entry 5(e) of Schedule II is ultra vires (alternative prayer).
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the payment of damages pursuant to an arbitral award, coupled with the recipient’s agreement to withdraw foreign enforcement proceedings under a court-recorded consent order, constitutes a "supply of service" under Section 7(1)(c) read with Entry 5(e) of Schedule II to the CGST Act, 2017.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Arvind Datar, Senior Advocate for Tata, argued that damages awarded by an arbitral tribunal are judicial compensation for breach of contract, not consideration for any service. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, which held that damages are not a debt until adjudicated and are the result of a court’s fiat, not a pre-existing obligation. He emphasized that Entry 5(e) requires an independent agreement to refrain from or tolerate an act for which separate consideration is paid. The Consent Terms merely recorded the consequence of the award’s satisfaction and did not create a new contractual obligation. He further relied on CBIC Circulars No. 178/2022 and No. 214/2023, which explicitly state that damages paid as compensation for breach are not taxable, and that the department is bound by such circulars as per Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE. He argued that the demand was perverse, violative of natural justice, and without jurisdiction.
For the Respondent
Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General, contended that the Consent Terms introduced a new, independent obligation: Docomo agreed to suspend and withdraw enforcement proceedings in the UK and USA for a six-month period, which constituted "tolerating an act" (i.e., the breach) and "refraining from an act" (i.e., initiating proceedings). He argued that this was a separate consideration flowing from the Consent Terms, distinct from the award, and thus fell squarely within Entry 5(e). He relied on decisions such as State of Orissa v. Mesco Steel Ltd. and Union of India v. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. to argue that the petition was premature and that the adjudicating authority had jurisdiction to determine taxability. He contended that the circulars were merely advisory and could not override statutory provisions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous analysis of the CGST Act, the Consent Terms, and the nature of arbitral damages. It began by noting that Section 7 defines "supply" as including all forms of supply made "for a consideration" in the course of business. Entry 5(e) of Schedule II treats as a supply of service "agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act." The Court emphasized that this provision must be read in conjunction with Section 7(1), which requires a nexus between the activity and consideration.
"The words 'agreeing to the obligation...' are a pointer that necessarily there needs to exist an independent agreement, where the parties in the normal course of business bind themselves to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act involving consideration, which would amount to supply of services of such nature."
The Court found that the Consent Terms were not an independent contract but an integral part of the enforcement proceedings for the arbitral award. The Delhi High Court’s order of 28 April 2017 explicitly recorded the Consent Terms as a mechanism to satisfy the award. Clause 7, which provided for suspension and withdrawal of foreign proceedings, was a direct consequence of the award’s satisfaction. The Court held:
"Any settlement brought about thereunder necessarily becomes 'integral to' and or 'intricately connected', to the decree itself. The reciprocal obligation even in settlement of a decree necessarily emanates from a decree, which cannot be construed to be an independent agreement de hors the decree and/or alien to the decree itself."
The Court further held that the award of damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act is compensation for loss, not consideration for a service. The Supreme Court in Raman Iron Foundry had held that damages are not a debt until adjudicated and are the result of a court’s fiat. The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that Docomo’s withdrawal of proceedings constituted a separate supply, noting:
"The proceedings were in relation to or under the arbitral award only, hence any satisfaction of the award amounts in the manner as agreed in Clause 7 of the consent terms, in law would result in such collateral proceedings necessarily coming to an end, as a natural corollary, on the principle that once the decree itself stands satisfied and accepted, the collateral proceedings to recover the very decretal amounts would not survive."
The Court also held that the CBIC Circulars No. 178/2022 and No. 214/2023 were binding on the department. Paragraph 7.1.4 of Circular No. 178/2022 explicitly states:
"...where the amount paid as 'liquidated damages' is an amount paid only to compensate for injury, loss or damage suffered by the aggrieved party due to breach of the contract and there is no agreement, express or implied, by the aggrieved party receiving the liquidated damages, to refrain from or tolerate an act or to do anything for the party paying the liquidated damages, in such cases liquidated damages are mere a flow of money... Such payments do not constitute consideration for a supply and are not taxable."
The Court found that the facts of the case fell squarely within this exclusion. The payment was compensation for breach, not consideration for toleration. The withdrawal of proceedings was a legal consequence, not a bargained-for service.
The Court also rejected the respondents’ argument that the petition was maintainable only after exhausting appellate remedies. It held that where an action is wholly without jurisdiction, as in this case, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not barred. The Court concluded:
"The approach of the department on the premise of Docomo merely agreeing not to pursue the UK/US proceedings in the course of realization of the decretal amounts would create any obligation on Docomo to refrain from an act or to tolerate an act or a situation or to do an act, as contemplated by Entry 5(e) of Schedule II, appears to be quite absurd."
The Verdict
The petition was allowed in part. The Bombay High Court set aside the Intimation under Form DRC-01A dated 28 September 2022 and the Show Cause Notice dated 26 July 2023. The Court held that the payment of Rs.8,450 crores as damages pursuant to the arbitral award did not constitute a supply of service under Section 7 read with Entry 5(e) of Schedule II of the CGST Act. The respondents were directed to withdraw the impugned notices and cease all proceedings based thereon. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Damages Are Not Consideration for Supply
- Practitioners must argue that any payment made as compensation for breach of contract - whether liquidated or unliquidated damages - cannot be taxed as consideration for a service under Entry 5(e) unless there is a separate, independent agreement for forbearance or toleration.
- The burden is on the tax authority to prove the existence of such an independent agreement, not merely the existence of a settlement.
Circulars Bind the Department
- CBIC Circulars interpreting the scope of "supply" under the CGST Act are binding on adjudicating officers, as confirmed by Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE.
- Where circulars explicitly exclude damages from taxability, any demand to the contrary is ultra vires and subject to immediate quashing.
Enforcement Proceedings Are Not Independent Supplies
-
Agreements to withdraw or suspend enforcement proceedings in court or arbitration are incidental to the satisfaction of a decree or award and do not constitute a separate supply.
-
Tax authorities cannot re-characterize the legal consequence of a judicial settlement as a taxable service.
-
Practitioners should immediately challenge any GST demand based on arbitral awards or court settlements using this judgment as precedent.
-
Tax officers must now distinguish between compensation for breach and consideration for a distinct service - a distinction that this judgment has firmly established.
