Query No. 17 Subject: Accounting for interest on delayed payment by power generation companies against coal supplied under Fuel Supply Agreement. [1] A. Facts of the Case 1. A company (hereinafter referred to as the ‘company’) is wholly owned subsidiary of a government company, engaged in extraction of coal. The company is located in the eastern part of India and its fields of operations are in the states of West Bengal and Jharkhand. The company supplies coal to:
For the year 2012-13, the company has produced 33.91 metric ton (MT) of coal and has achieved a net turnover of Rs. 9,191.91 crore. 2. The company supplies coal to power houses under fuel supply agreement (FSA) (copy of the said agreement has been furnished by the querist for the perusal of the Committee), the salient features of which are enumerated below: Modalities for billing claims and payments
3. The querist has stated that although the power houses are generally irregular in releasing payment, the company has not resorted to stop the supply of coal under the terms of FSA having regards to the national interest. The company is claiming interest on the delayed payment by the power houses in terms of the provisions of FSA. However, such claim towards interest on delayed payment by the company is not recognised as revenue in view of the uncertainty of ultimate collection having regard to the provision of Accounting Standard (AS) 9, ‘Revenue Recognition’, notified under the Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) which is quoted as under:
4. The company is following a constant practice of making provision towards debts doubtful of recovery, which is stated in the clause no. 4.1 of the additional notes on accounts of the company (Note 34) quoted as under:
B. Query
5. Considering the above facts, the querist has sought the opinion of the Expert Advisory Committee as to whether the accounting treatment followed by the company with respect to claim of interest on delayed payments under the terms of agreement with its customers and its postponement of the recognition of revenue till the claim is admitted, is consistent with the provisions of AS 9 relating to recognition of revenue. C.Points considered by the Committee
6. The Committee notes that the basic issue raised by the querist relates to whether accounting treatment followed by the company with respect to claim of interest on delayed payments under the terms of the agreement with its customers and its postponement of recognition as revenue till the claim is admitted is in consistence with the principles of AS 9. The Committee has, therefore, considered only this issue and has not examined any other issue that may arise from the Facts of the Case such as, revenue recognition with respect to coal supply, accounting policy of the company for making provision for doubtful debts, legal interpretation of the Fuel Supply Agreement, etc.
7. The Committee notes the following paragraphs of AS 9, notified under the Rules:
From the above, the Committee notes that interest represents charge for the use of cash resources or amounts due to the enterprise. Interest on delayed payments is thus in the nature of interest and should, therefore, be accounted for in accordance with the principles laid down for recognition of revenue. The Committee also notes that revenue arising from the use by others of enterprise resources yielding interest should only be recognised when no significant uncertainty as to measurability or collectability exists. It should be recognised on a time proportion basis taking into account the amount outstanding and the rate applicable. 8. The Committee also notes the following paragraphs of the Fuel Supply Agreement, as supplied by the querist for the perusal of the Committee:
The Committee further notes that the payment mechanisms by the purchaser have also been specified in the Agreement. 9 From the above, the Committee notes that the amount of claim of interest for delayed payment from the customers is reasonably determinable as it is contractually agreed between the parties and it is clearly stated in the Agreement how the same would be calculated. Further, the Committee notes from the Facts of the Case that it has been explicitly stated by the querist in paragraph 3 above that although the company is claiming interest on the delayed payment by the power houses in terms of the provisions of FSA, such claim towards interest on delayed payment by the company is not recognised as revenue in view of the uncertainty of ultimate collection. The Committee is of the view that to assess the certainty or uncertainty of ultimate collection is a matter of judgement, which should be exercised considering various factors, such as, on the basis of past experience, etc. Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that to the extent and till the time such uncertainty of collection exists, revenue recognition should be postponed. The revenue needs to be recongised when it is reasonably certain that the ultimate collection will be made. The Committee is further of the view that in such cases, where the revenue recognition is postponed, disclosures should be made as per paragraph 14 of AS 9 which is reproduced below:
D.Opinion
10. On the basis of above, the Committee is of the opinion that to assess the certainty or uncertainty of ultimate collection is a matter of judgement, which should be exercised considering various factors, such as, on the basis of past experience, etc. Accordingly, to the extent and till the time such uncertainty of collection exists, revenue recognition should be postponed. The revenue needs to be recognised when it is reasonably certain that the ultimate collection will be made. The Committee is further of the view that in such cases, where the revenue recognition is postponed, disclosures should be made as per paragraph 14 of AS 9, as discussed in paragraph 9 above.
__________________________ [1]Opinion finalised by the Committee on 6.6.2014.
|