Rav Singh

Supreme Court Opines on Residence Rule under IT Act, 1961: Traverses Familiar Path

by

In a judgment[1] delivered on 10 April 2023, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court opined on the residency principle of companies under Section 6(3)(ii) of IT Act, 1961. While there were a few other issues involved in the case, in this post I will focus on Supreme Court’s treatment of the residency principle of companies and how it missed an opportunity to advance the jurisprudence on this issue. Instead, it merely reproduced the ratio of previous judgments without adding any substantive value. 

Before proceeding, it is important to state that Section 6(3)(ii), IT Act, 1961 was amended in 2017. Pre-amendment, Section 6(3)(ii) stated that a company is said to be resident in India if the control and management of its affairs is situated wholly in India. Post-2017, Section 6(3)(ii) states that a company is said to be resident in India in any previous year if its place of effective management, in that year, is in India. The pre-amendment clause was applicable in the impugned case. The State though argued that to cull the meaning of pre-2017 clause it is important to consider the post-2017 clause, but this argument wasn’t expressly endorsed by the Supreme Court. (para 4.5) 

Facts and Issues 

Assessees in the impugned case were companies registered in Sikkim under the Registration of Companies (Sikkim) Act, 1961. Their business was to act as commercial agents for sale of cardamom and other agricultural products. The case of assessees was that they were residents of Sikkim and conducted their business in Sikkim and were thus governed by Sikkim State Income Tax Manual, 1948 and not IT Act, 1961. The reason the two income tax statutes were in question was because of historical reasons. Sikkim became part of India in April 1975, but all Indian laws were not immediately made applicable to Sikkim. Thus, residents of Sikkim continued to be governed by the Sikkim State Income Tax Manual, 1948. This was until Finance Act, 1989 proposed to make IT Act, 1961 applicable to Sikkim commencing from 1 April 1990. Thus, for the period prior to 1 April 1990, the assessees were foreign companies under IT Act, 1961 and could be considered as Indian residents only if control and management of their affairs was situated wholly in India. The State’s entire case was that the companies satisfied the latter criteria under Section 6(3)(ii), IT Act, 1961.   

The State contended that the assessees were not residents of Sikkim based on the documents obtained from their Delhi-based accountants in a search operation. The accountants were found in possession of book of accounts, signed blank cheques, cheque books, letter heads, rubber seals, and other income documents of the assessees. The State further alleged that the accountants were appointing Directors of the companies and thus the control and management of the assessees was completely from Delhi. 

The issue before the Supreme Court – and one that I focus on in this post – was: should the assessees be considered as residents of Sikkim due to reason of their incorporation in Sikkim or should they be considered as residents of India since they were (allegedly) completely managed and controlled from Delhi?   

Summary of Jurisprudence 

The Supreme Court dutifully cited the precedents that have elaborated on the test to determine the residence of a company not incorporated in India or to determine the control and management of HUF. The leading case on the issue is that of VVRNM Subbaya Chettiar[2], where in determining the residence of HUF under the Income Tax Act, 1922 the Supreme Court opined that ‘control and management’ signifies that the controlling and directive power or the ‘head and brain’ is functioning at a particular place with a certain degree of permanence. And since control and management of a company remains in the hand of a person or group of persons the question to be asked is wherefrom such person or group of persons control the company. Mere activity of a company at a particular place did not create its residence at that place. This test, in short referred to as the ‘substance over form’ test has been endorsed in subsequent decisions as well. For example, in Erin Estate[3] case the Supreme Court observed that the test was a mixed question of law and fact and clarified that what was necessary to show was from where the de facto control and management was exercised in the management of the firm and not the place from where the theoretical or de jure control was exercised. Similarly, in Narottam and Pereira Ltd[4]  the Bombay High Court observed that the authority which controls and manages the employees and servants is the central authority, and the place from where such central authority functions is the residence of the company.     

Expressing its agreement with the above line of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court stated that in the impugned case the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rightly concluded that the control and management of the assessees was with their accountants in Delhi and thus residence was in India. And that the conclusion is aligned with the findings of fact and material on record.  

No Substantial Addition to the Jurisprudence  

Given the set of facts detailed in the judgment, the Supreme Court’s decision seems justifiable. However, it also feels like a missed opportunity as the Supreme Court never really went beyond what was stated in the precedents. The facts offered an opportunity to examine – in some depth – how and if certain situations prove or lend support to the assertion that an assessee is controlled from a place other than its place of incorporation. Was the fact of an accountant possessing all relevant materials and documents of a company sufficient for an irrefutable conclusion that the accountant controlled the company? Or was the additional fact of an accountant appointing and controlling the Directors of a company an equal or more decisive factor? Further, inability to prove that assessees received all their payments in Sikkim and that their rates of commission were astronomical/unrealistic were relied on by the Supreme Court to arrive at its conclusion. But we are left unaware as to which fact was decisive or was it the combination of facts that tilted the case against the assessees. 

One crucial aspect that the Supreme Court did not address clearly was the burden of proof in such cases. It is important to note that the two cases that the Supreme Court cited approvingly, i.e., VVRANM Subbaya Chettiar and Erin Estate cases made their observations in the context of Section 4-A(b), IT Act, 1992 (the predecessor of Section 6(2), IT Act, 1961) where the burden of proof is on assessee to show that the HUF is not a resident of India. And in Erin Estate case it was clearly stated that the onus to rebut the initial presumption is on the assessee. (para 6) While under Section 6(3)(ii), IT Act, 1961, the applicable provision in the impugned case, the initial burden is on the State to show that a company incorporated outside India is wholly managed from India.    

In the impugned case, the petitioners argued that the State had not discharged its onus that the control and management of the company was wholly situated in India. (para 3.14) The Delhi High Court’s judgment which was under appeal had mentioned that once all the materials and documents of the company were discovered in possession of the accountants, the burden was on the assessee to prove that the residence of company was not in India. (para 6.3) Since the Supreme Court did not find any error in the Delhi High Court’s findings on this issue, it stands to reason that the High Court’s view was upheld. Is discovery of important documents of a company from a place other than the place of incorporation/registered office sufficient to shift the burden of proof to assessees? We do not have clear answers.    

The result is that the Supreme Court’s judgment apart from reiterating the substance over form test, added no significant jurisprudential value to the residence test under Section 6(3)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961.    

[1] Mansarovar Commercial Pvt Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 291. 

[2] V.V.R.N.M. Subbayya v CIT, Madras AIR 1951 SC 101. 

[3] Erin Estate v CIT AIR 1958 SC 779. 

[4] Narottam and Pereira Ltd v CIT, Bombay City 1953 23 ITR 454 Bom. 

Onerous Burden: Supreme Court Restricts ITC Claims under KVAT Act, 2003

by

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court on 13 March 2023, decided a group of appeals under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘KVAT Act, 2003’) and denied Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) to purchasers.[1] While the dispute was under KVAT Act, 2003, the interpretive approach adopted by the Supreme Court could have some repercussions for taxpayers under GST. The aim of this post is to understand the Supreme Court’s interpretive approach and examine its relevance to GST. 

Introduction

The Supreme Court decided a group of appeals involving purchasers who were claiming ITC under the KVAT Act, 2003. The State denied purchasers ITC on the ground the sellers fell in either one of the following categories: they had filed ‘Nil’ returns, or were de-registered, or did not file returns or denied their turnover and refused to file taxes. The Karnataka High Court allowed purchasers to claim ITC on the ground that they had made payments to the sellers through account payee cheques and had produced relevant invoices to prove genuineness of the sale transactions. (para 4.1) The State filed appeal against the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court.  

Conditions to Claim ITC 

The central provision in the dispute was Section 70(1), KVAT Act, 2003 which provides that: 

For the purposes of payment or assessment of tax or any claim to input tax under this Act, the burden of proving that any transaction of a dealer is not liable to tax, or any claim to deduction of input tax is correct, shall lie on such dealer. 

The State argued that purchasers cannot claim to have successfully discharged the burden under Section 70, KVAT Act, 2003 by merely proving financial transfers/transactions through invoices and cheques. To discharge their burden, the State argued, the purchasers are also required to establish actual movement of goods. The State further argued that the High Court had not appreciated the fact that the State cannot recover taxes from a seller who files ‘Nil’ returns. The purchasers, on the other hand, argued that once they produce genuine invoices and evidence of payments through cheques, it should be considered sufficient discharge of their burden under Section 70, KVAT Act, 2003. And that the statute and the relevant Rules under KVAT Rules, 2005 – Rules 27 and 29 – did not require a purchaser to submit any additional documents to claim ITC. The purchasers further argued that if the seller had not paid the tax, then the State needs to recover the tax from the seller and not block their ITC. 

Interpreting Burden of Proof under Section 70 of KVAT Act, 2003  

The narrow issue that the Supreme Court was required to decide was if proving movement of goods was necessary for a purchaser to discharge the burden under Section 70, KVAT Act, 2003. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative and held that proving genuineness of the transaction and physical movement of goods is sine qua non to claim ITC and the same can only be proved through name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle, acknowledgement of the delivery of goods, etc. The Supreme Court held that:

If the purchasing dealer/s fails/fail to establish and prove the said important aspect of physical movement of the goods alleged to have been purchased by it/them from the concerned dealers and on which the ITC have been claimed, the Assessing Officer is absolutely justified in rejecting such ITC claim. (para 10)

Supreme Court repeated the same observation thrice in its judgment to emphasise that unless the purchaser proves movement of goods, the genuineness of the transaction could not be established and in its absence the burden of proof under Section 70, KVAT Act, 2003 was not discharged by the purchasers. In my view, the Supreme Court repeatedly states its conclusion in the judgment to disguise it as reasoning. There is no explanation by the Supreme Court as to why proving movement of goods should be read as an essential condition under Section 70, KVAT Act, 2003. If the relevant statutory provisions and Rules did not impose an express condition on the purchaser to prove movement of goods and the same was being read into the provisions, there was an additional need for the Supreme Court to provide its reasons. Merely repeating the same conclusions do not reinforce an interpretation or make it more defensible.  

In this case, the relevant provision(s) were silent if the purchaser needs to prove the movement of goods. The facts elaborated in the judgment do not clearly establish if interpreting the additional condition of movement of goods was necessary. The State argued that the additional condition was necessary to prove genuineness of the transaction and the Supreme Court certainly went beyond the text of the statutory provisions and relevant Rules to accept the State’s argument. Perhaps the Supreme Court in trying to prevent tax evasion and fraudulent ITC claims did not give sufficient thought about the need to protect taxpayer rights. Or maybe the Supreme Court was trying to compensate for an oversight in legislative drafting. Irrespective, the deficient reasoning is palpable in the judgment.        

Attributing Fault, Denying ITC, and Position under GST  

The Karnataka High Court by allowing ITC claims had agreed with the purchaser’s argument – also repeated before the Supreme Court – that they cannot be held liable for seller’s failure to deposit the tax. While the State argued that a purchaser can only claim ITC on the tax paid by the seller, and if the seller does not deposit tax, it is logical to block ITC of the purchaser. GST seeks to address the same issue, i.e., who should be liable for the seller’s failure to deposit tax with the State? Can the State block or reverse ITC of a purchaser because of the seller’s fault? If so, under what circumstances? We do not have clear answers for now.   

One of the conditions to claim ITC is provided under Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 which states that no person shall be entitled to ITC in respect of supply of any goods or services or both unless the tax charged in respect of such supply ‘has actually been paid to the Government’ either through cash or utilization of ITC. Thus, seller must deposit the tax for a purchaser to successfully claim ITC. 

Further, after a series of amendments, it is not possible for a purchaser to claim ITC unless the seller has filed their GST returns indicating the supplies on which the purchaser can claim ITC.[2] Linking the ITC claims to seller’s returns certainly seems to make the co-operation of purchaser and seller necessary to claim ITC.  However, in my view, the statutory provisions do not decisively attribute liability in case of seller’s inability or failure to deposit the tax.  

In M/s D.Y. Beathel Enterprises[3], a case decided under Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (pari materia with CGST Act, 2017), the Madras High Court ‘did not appreciate’, the approach of the Revenue whereby they reversed ITC of the purchaser while not initiating any recovery action against the seller for not depositing the tax. The High Court observed that inquiry against the seller was necessary since the State made claim that there was no movement of goods. The High Court held that if the State does not receive the tax, liability has to be borne by one party – seller or buyer, but it did not specifically state which party must bear the burden. And it remanded the matter back to the Revenue Department directing initiation of fresh inquiry against both the purchaser and seller. 

The Madras High Court’s decision cannot be treated as precedent under GST for all kinds of fact situations and the final word on the issue is yet to be spoken. Also, the High Court did not conclusively attribute liability to one party but directed action against both – purchaser and seller. And if the Supreme Court’s interpretive approach under KVAT, 2003 is any indication, the purchasers are unlikely to find it easy to claim ITC under GST or are likely to get their ITC reversed if the seller defaults or delays filing of their returns or otherwise does not deposit tax with the State. If and when the liability will be attached to purchaser due to the conduct of the seller is currently an open question.        

[1] State of Karnataka v M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited 2023 SCC OnLine SC 248. 

[2] Section 16(2) and Section 38 of CGST Act, 2017 were amended via the Finance Act, 2022 with the result that the purchasing dealer is dependent on the supplier furnishing its GSTR-1. 

[3] M/s D.Y. Beathel Enterprises v State Tax Officer 2021-VIL-308-MAD. 

LinkedIn