A
High Court case will decide on the Goods and Services
Tax (GST) payable on a failed contract, which will have
further implications on the definition of ‘supply of
goods and services’.
Reliance
Carpet entered into a contract with
a customer, involving a deposit of
10 percent but the customer failed
to pay the balance, forfeiting the
deposit to the vendor. The
Australian Tax Office found that GST
was payable on the deposit.
Reliance objected and went to the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal,
which found that the failed
contracts still constituted
‘supply’ and therefore they were
liable to pay GST. Reliance appealed
to the Federal Court, which found in
favour of Reliance, stating that
‘supply’ did not take place as
the contract was rescinded.
Furthermore, if GST were payable on
the deposit, it would have wider
implications on cancellation fees,
late fees and other similar fees.
If the Tax Commissioner loses the
case against Reliance Carpet,
millions of businesses and consumers
may be due a refund for wrongly
charged GST.
So
urce
: Dynamic Business -
Sydney, NSW, Australia, dated 15/04/2008