Indirect Tax

One-Year Retrospect on Union of India v Mohit Minerals – II

by

This is the second of a two-part post on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v Mohit Minerals[1] pronounced on 19 May 2022. In the first part, I focused on the Supreme Court’s observations on legal value of the GST Council’s recommendations. In this post, I will focus on the statutory aspects of the case: the arguments, the Supreme Court’s engagement with the same and the basis of its conclusion that IGST on ocean freight was not permissible. 

To briefly recall, the dispute centred around two Notifications issued by the Union. Notification 8/2017 provided IGST shall be levied on supply of services, i.e., transportation of goods in a vessel from a place outside India up to the customs clearance in India under a CIF contract. And an IGST of 5% was levied supply of such services. Notification 10/2017, issued under Section 5(3) categorised the recipient of such services to include the importer based in India with IGST payable under reverse charge.

Statutory Provisions and Relevant Arguments

At the outset, it is worth citing is Section 5(1) of IGST Act, 2017 which states that: 

Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), there shall be levied a tax called the integrated goods and services tax on all inter-State supplies of goods or services or both, except on the supply of alcoholic liquor for human consumption, on the value determined under section 15 of Central Goods and Services Act and at such rates, not exceeding forty per cent., as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council and collected in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be paid by the taxable person: 

And, Section 5(3), IGST Act, 2017 which states that: 

The Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify categories of supply of goods or services or both, the tax on which shall be paid on reverse charge basis by the recipient of such goods or services or both and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such recipient as if he is the person liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such goods or services or both.   

The assessee argued that Section 5(3) only delegates the power to identify the categories of goods or services on which tax shall be paid on reverse charge basis and not identify a recipient of supply. Notification 10/2017, on the other hand, identified the importer as a recipient for purposes of Section 5(3) and was ultra vires the IGST Act on the ground of excessive delegation. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and stated that the essential legislative functions had been performed by the legislature. It referred to Section 5(1), IGST Act, 2017 and Section 2(107), CGST Act, 2017 to conclude that levy of tax, subject matter of tax, value for purpose of taxation and taxable person had been provided in these respective provisions. Crucially, it referred to the definition of ‘recipient’ under Section 2(93) of CGST Act, 2017 which includes a person to whom possession or use of goods is made available. The importer of goods was included in this category. 

The Supreme Court concluded that the Union had in exercise of powers under Section 5(3) only specified the categories of supply and the stipulation that the importer was the recipient of supply of transportation services was only clarificatory. In other words, the Notification did not traverse beyond the statute in identifying the recipient and could not be said to suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. 

Regarding Section 5(1), IGST Act, 2017, the assessee argued that it is a charging provision and Sections 5(3) and Section 5(4) cannot be used to create an independent charge. The Supreme Court opined that Section 5(1) identifies the four canons of taxation: taxable event, taxable person, taxable rate, and taxable value. And that Section 5(3) and 5(4) are inextricably linked to the charging provision Section 5(1) as the charging and machinery provisions need to be understood as an integrated code. The Court then referred to Rule 31, CGST Rules, 2017 under which value of supply can be determined for cases not specifically mentioned in other rules, and concluded that neither of the two Notifications could be struck down on the ground of excessive delegation as they had correctly identified the taxable person and prescribed the IGST rate. The Supreme Court upheld the power to determine the tax rate through a Notification since the basic framework had been provided by the Parliament under the aforementioned provisions.  

The Supreme Court’s engagement with assessee’s argument on Section 5(1) is confusing. It engages with the assessee’s argument about excessive delegation, inter-relationship of the various sub-sections of section 5, IGST Act, 2017 in an overlapping manner without sufficiently clarifying either aspect. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment have an awkward logical flow and the reasoning on this point is uneven. And while the conclusion on the above mentioned points are correct, the reasoning lacks pinpointed analysis and is impeded by reference to numerous statutory provisions that are not relevant to the issues.   

Another crucial question that the Supreme Court had to engage with was: if imported goods on a CIF basis constituted an inter-State supply? The Supreme Court referred to Section 7, CGST Act, 2017 which inter alia defines supply to include ‘import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business;’. It also referred to Section 7(4), IGST Act, 2017 which defines an inter-State supply to include supply of services imported into the territory of India. Referring to the above provisions, the Supreme Court noted that an Indian importer could be considered as importer of service of shipping liable to IGST if the activity falls within the definition of ‘import of service’. Accordingly, it then examined the definition of import of service.  

Section 2(11), CGST Act, 2017 states that import of services means the supply of any service, where – 

  • The supplier is located outside India; 
  • The recipient of service is located in India; and 
  • The place of supply of service is in India;

The assessee’s argument was that conditions (ii) and (iii) were not satisfied in the impugned case. The assessee was relying on the contract between the foreign exporter and the foreign shipping service based outside India. But the Supreme Court stated that the answer must be found in statutory provisions and not in terms of the contract. In pursuance of the same, it referred to Section 13(9), IGST Act, 2017 which provides that place of supply of services where location of supplier or location of recipient is outside India shall in case of service of transportation of goods shall be place of destination of such goods. Relying on Section 13(9), IGST Act, 2017 the Supreme Court held that since the goods under the CIF contract would enter the Indian taxable territory, place of supply of shipping service would be India. Thus, condition (iii) was held to be fulfilled in the impugned case. 

The thorny question was proving that the recipient of service was located in India to fulfil condition (ii). This could only be true if the importer was identified as the recipient of shipping services. The Supreme Court did not accept the State’s argument it had powers to designate any person to pay tax on a reverse charge basis irrespective of their status as a recipient. Neither did it accept that any person identified for payment of reverse charge would automatically become the recipient. On both counts the Supreme Court was right. However, the Supreme Court still concluded that the importer was a recipient by relying on the definition of recipient under Section 2(93)(c), CGST Act, 2017 which inter alia stated that ‘any reference to a person to whom a supply is made shall be construed as reference to the recipient of the supply’. Reading Section 2(93)(c), CGST Act, 2017 with Section 13(9), IGST Act, 2017 stated above, it concluded that: 

            In such a scenario, when the place of supply of services is deemed to be the destination of goods under Section 13(9) of the IGST Act, the supply of services would necessarily be “made” to the Indian importer, who would then be considered as a “recipient” under the definition of Section 2(93)(c) of the CGST Act. The supply can thus be construed as being “made” to the Indian importer who becomes the recipient under Section 2(93)(c) of the CGST Act. (para 118) 

By interpreting the definition of recipient in conjunction with place of supply, the Supreme Court relied on a deeming fiction to remove a major obstacle in the State’s way. In contractual terms, the recipient in a CIF basis would ordinarily be the exporter since the consideration flows from the exporter to the shipping company. But, the Supreme Court’s insistence on understanding the terms by referring to the statutory provisions instead of relying on commercial parlance proved fruitful for the State. (para 102) The Supreme Court’s approach also negatived the assessee’s challenge that levy was extra-territorial in nature since the transaction took place outside India. This is because as per the Supreme Court the destination of goods was India and services were ‘rendered for the benefit of the Indian importer.’ (para 108) Though the Supreme Court did not address the issues of extra-territoriality and identification of recipient in the same chronological fashion.   

IGST on Ocean Freight Runs into the Hurdle of Double Taxation

The State’s case fell on the benign hurdle of double taxation. It is important to first state that a composite supply means a supply made by a taxable person to a recipient consisting of two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both which are naturally bundled together and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business. Section 8, CGST Act, 2017 states that a composite supply comprising of two or more supplies one of which is a principal supply, shall be treated as supply of such principal supply. The deeming fiction under Section 8 of CGST Act, 2017 being that two supplies would be treated as a single supply and would be subject to the tax rate of the principal supply.  

In the impugned case, for the first leg of the transaction between the foreign exporter and Indian importer, latter was liable to pay IGST on value goods, but the valuation included the cost of shipping services, i.e., cost of insurance and freight as the said transaction was treated as a composite supply. Thus, IGST was levied on supply of goods, since it was the principal supply in accordance with Section 8, CGST Act, 2017.  

The State argued that the second leg of the transaction between the foreign exporter and the shipping line should be treated as an independent contract operating in silos. The Supreme Court did not accept this argument reasoning that the State had argued that both legs of the transaction are connected when it argued that the importer was the recipient, but to tide over the composite supply provisions it is making a contradictory argument that the transactions are standalone. The State justified its contradictory stance by relying on the aspect theory wherein different aspects of a transaction can be subjected to different taxes. For instance, in the impugned case, the State could levy GST on the supply of imported goods as well as supply of transportation services, since they were different aspects of the same transaction.  

While the Supreme Court accepted that different aspects of a transaction can be taxed under the aspect theory, but it emphasised that in such a case value of goods cannot be included in services and vice-versa. While the State in the impugned case had included the value of services when levying IGST on supply of goods by invoking the concept of composite supply. The Supreme Court rightly concluded that supply of service of transportation by the foreign shipper forms a part of the bundle of supplies between the foreign exporter and Indian importer on which IGST is payable. To levy IGST on supply of service component of the transaction would contradict the principle under Section 8, CGST Act, 2017 and be in violation of the scheme of the GST legislation.     

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court in the impugned decision waxes eloquent on the nature and structure of GST and various parts of the judgment are informative and well-reasoned. At the same time, various provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017 are cited that are not germane to the issue. The judgment though well-structured on first glance, struggles in identifying priority issues and its various parts seem superfluous and not necessary to adjudicate the central issue. While these might sound like lesser evils given some other judgments of the Supreme Court that lack basic reasoning, they are still worth mentioning. Overall, the judgment did arrive at the right conclusion, and endorsed a well-reasoned judgment of the Gujarat High Court which was under appeal in this case. Despite the State losing this case, there are several takeaways for it, one prominent one is that the net of extra-territorial taxation has been cast wide and beyond with the Supreme Court’s observations. If an Indian resident is the ultimate recipient of a transaction occurring outside India, the State can extend its GST jurisdiction on such an overseas transaction in various circumstances. It would be surprising if the Supreme Court’s views on nexus and extra-territoriality are not used in the future especially for further extending GST on online transactions that have a cross-border element.   

[1] Union of India v Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd 2022 SCC OnLine SC 657.

One-Year Retrospect on Union of India v Mohit Minerals – I

by

This is first of a two-part post that explores in detail the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v Mohit Minerals[1]pronounced on 19 May 2022. In this crucial decision the Supreme Court ruled on the Union of India’s (‘Union’) competence to levy GST on ocean  freight and also examined legal value of the GST Council’s recommendations. The Supreme Court’s observations that the GST Council’s recommendations are not binding garnered attention of most commentators who made doomsday predictions about GST. I’m using the one-year ‘anniversary’ of the decision as an opportunity to examine the decision in detail and hopefully clarify some misgivings about the Supreme Court’s observations.  

First of this two-part post will focus on the Supreme Court’s opinion on nature of recommendations of the GST Council and the second part will focus on the reasoning deployed by the Supreme Court to conclude that GST on ocean freight is unsustainable.  

Introduction

The dispute centred around two Notifications issued by the Union which levied IGST on supply of services, i.e., transportation of goods in a vessel from a place outside India up to the customs clearance in India under a CIF contract. And categorised the importer based in India as the recipient of such services with IGST payable under reverse charge. The relevant provisions – for the purposes of this post – are Sections 5, 6, and 22 of the IGST Act, 2017. Section 5 states that the Government may ‘on the recommendations of the Council’ specify the IGST rates on inter-State supplies of goods or services or both. Section 6 empowers the Government to exempt, absolutely or conditionally, goods or services ‘on the recommendations of the Council’. And Section 22 states the Government may ‘on the recommendations of the Council’ make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act. 

The Union argued that the recommendations of the GST Council – made to the Union and States under Article 279A(4) of the Constitution – are binding and its rule making exercisable on such recommendations are very wide. To engage with the Union’s argument, the Supreme Court had to examine the effect of the 101st Constitutional Amendment, 2016 which inter alia introduced two new provisions to the Constitution, i.e., Article 246A – which confers legislative powers with respect to GST on the Union and States – and Article 279A, which envisages the GST Council and prescribes the nature and scope of its work.    

Using Legislative History as an Aid to Constitutional Interpretation

The Supreme Court examinedlegislative history of the 101st Constitutional Amendment and arrived at two major findings with regard to Article 246A: first, that Article 246A departs from the previous Constitutional scheme of complete separation of taxation powers between the Union and States characterised by absence of any major taxation entry in the Concurrent List; second, Article 246A is not subject to a repugnancy provision unlike Article 246(2) which is subject to Article 254. Based on the above, it concluded that:

The concurrent power exercised by the legislatures under Article 246A is termed as a ‘simultaneous power’ to differentiate it from the constitutional design on exercise of concurrent power under Article 246, the latter being subject to the repugnancy clause under Article 254. The constitutional role and functions of the GST Council must be understood in the context of the simultaneous legislative power conferred on Parliament and the State legislatures. It is from that perspective that the role of the GST Council becomes relevant. (para 30)

The Supreme Court’s observations on Article 246A underscored that the Union and States were on an equal footing under Article 246A, and neither could claim primacy over the other in exercising legislative powers under the said provision. 

In understanding role of the GST Council, the Supreme Court again relied on legislative history and emphasised that the draft version of Article 279A – in the Constitution Amendment Bill, 2011 – provided that the GST Council would only make recommendations through a unanimous decision and a dispute settlement authority would adjudicate on disputes that may arise if there are deviations from its recommendations. Both aspects were later amended: first, Article 279A(9) of the Constitution provides that the GST Council can make recommendations with a majority of votes; second, Article 279A(11) provides the GST Council is empowered to establish a mechanism to adjudicate any dispute arising out of its recommendations instead of envisaging a permanent dispute settlement authority. 

The Supreme Court reasoned as to why the changes were made. First, by allowing the GST Council to make recommendations via majority decisions was, as per the Supreme Court, a nod to the spirit of federalism. It was acknowledgment of the fact that not all decisions could be reached through unanimity and consensus. Second, the Supreme Court referred to Parliamentary debates and views of the Standing Committee on Finance to observe that the States were concerned about their autonomy if a permanent dispute settlement authority would have jurisdiction over their decisions and to examine if they deviated from the recommendations of the GST Council. Accordingly, Article 279A empowers the GST Council regarding modalities of dispute resolution and does not envisage a permanent dispute resolution body. 

Relying on the legislative history and its reasoning that the GST Council is meant to be a body to facilitate dialogue in the co-operative federal setup of India, the Supreme Court concluded that the notion that the recommendations of the GST Council transform into legislation in and of themselves under Article 246A is far-fetched. More crucially, the Supreme Court observed that the Parliamentary debates indicate that recommendations of the GST Council were only meant to assist the Union and States in their legislative functions and not overpower them. The Supreme Court reasoned that neither does Article 279A begin with a non-obstante clause nor does Article 246A provide that it is subject to Article 279A. Further, the Supreme Court observed, that if the recommendations of the GST Council were to transform into legislation without an intervening act, there would have been an express provision to that effect in Article 246A. 

Bifurcating Recommendations into Two Categories 

The Supreme Court rejected the Union’s argument that the recommendations of the GST Council are binding. Relying on legislative intent, its interpretation of Article 246A and Article 279A, and character of Indian federalism, the Supreme Court concluded that: 

            .. the Centre has a one-third vote share in the GST Council. This coupled with the absence of the repugnancy provision in Article 246A indicates that recommendations of the GST Council cannot be binding. Such an interpretation would be contrary to the objective of introducing the GST regime and would also dislodge the fine balance on which Indian federalism rests. Therefore, the argument that if the recommendations of the GST Council are not binding, then the entire structure of GST would crumble does not hold water. (para 51)

The above observations logically flow from the Supreme Court’s view that Article 246A provides simultaneous legislative powers to the Union and States but, in the GST Council, the Union possesses greater voting weightage. Thus, the recommendations of the GST Council under Article 279A cannot be binding as it would dilute the powers granted to the States under Article 246A.

The above cited paragraph also captures the two factors that the Supreme Court had to weigh in deciding the legal value of the recommendations of the GST Council: uniformity of GST regime vis-a-vis State autonomy. If the recommendations of the GST Council under Article 279A were to be held to be binding, it would have ensured complete uniformity of GST but further sacrificed the already diminished State autonomy. More pertinently, it would have diluted the true scope of Article 246A. The Supreme Court correctly weaved the inter-relationship of Article 246A with Article 279A, and stitched it together with its views on the GST Council as a body to facilitate dialogue and act as a platform to further co-operative federalism.       

However, the Supreme Court added that not all recommendations of the GST Council are non-binding. The Supreme Court went ahead to state that the GST Council’s recommendations are binding on the Government when it exercises its power to notify secondary legislation to give effect to the uniform taxation system. (para 59) This conclusion rests on thin ice. There are two proximate reasons for the Supreme Court’s aforementioned conclusion: first, that the secondary legislation framed based on recommendations of the GST Council has to be mandatorily tabled before the Houses of the Parliament; second, it is important to give effect to a uniform taxation system since GST was introduced to prevent different States from providing different tax slabs and exemptions. (paras 56 and 59)

Section 164, CGST Act, 2017 and Section 22, IGST Act, 2017 empower the Government to make rules, on the recommendation of the Council, to carry out the provisions of the respective legislations. Every rule, regulation and notification is to be laid before each House of the Parliament. More importantly, Section 166, CGST Act, 2017 and Section 24, IGST Act, 2017 empower both Houses to modify any rule or regulation or notification, or prevent them from having effect. In holding that the Government is bound to notify secondary legislation to give effect to uniform tax rates under GST, the Supreme Court ignored Section 166 of CGST Act, 2017 and Section 24 of IGST Act, 2017. Is the power provided to both the Houses to prevent issuance of certain Notifications redundant in so far as Notifications relating to GST rates are concerned? The Supreme Court gave no credible explanation as to why cannot the spirit of co-operative federalism that is supposed to guide all other decisions in the GST Council be invoked for uniform tax rates as well? While uniformity in GST is its stated and desirable goal, but it cannot be achieved through a route that bypasses statutory provisions.     

I would also like to highlight that, in its rather detailed analysis of Article 279A, the Supreme Court completely bypassed the fact that the GST Council members, in various instances, effectively make recommendations to themselves. The Union Finance Minister as the ex-officio Chairperson of the GST Council and State Finance Ministers as the members, are the Ministers responsible for implementation of GST. Any recommendations of the GST Council that require executive action are to be acted upon by its Chairperson and its members in their capacities as the respective Finance Ministers. This ensures that the recommendations, except when they require legislative approval, are on a de facto basis binding. Thus, when the Supreme Court observed that certain recommendations of the GST Council – requiring notification of tax rates – are binding, it unhesitatingly approved the revolving door mechanism of the GST Council, and gave de jure status to an inherently flawed mechanism. While the fault lies in the Constitutional mechanism encoded in Article 279A, it was necessary in this detailed judgment to examine this aspect of Article 279A and duly account for it before adjudicating on the legal value of the recommendations of the GST Council.   

While bifurcating the GST Council’s recommendations into two categories is not incorrect per se, the Supreme Court’s conclusion about the binding nature of recommendations that relate to tax rates is devoid of persuasive reasoning. In my view, it muddles the Supreme Court’s own views about the role of GST Council and introduces unnecessary complexity in interpreting Article 279A and does not meaningfully examine crucial statutory provisions that provide important powers to the Houses to scrutinise secondary legislation.            

Conclusion

Apart from its conclusion that the GST Council’s recommendations are binding on the Government when its notifies tax rates and its omission on factor the revolving door mechanism, the Supreme Court judgment provides elaborate reasons. The observations of the Supreme Court, however, caused consternation because of its perceived implications. The truth is that the ‘Grand Bargain’ of GST is based on an agreement between the Union and States and the GST Council merely acts as a facilitative body to realise the said promise.  The effect of the 101st Constitutional Amendment is that the States pool their sovereignty with the Union, but are not legally bound to toe the line of the Union or the GST Council on every aspect of GST. And the Supreme Court’s decision makes amply clear an obvious Constitutional position reflected in Article 246A and Article 279A. However, the Supreme Court’s observations do not imply that GST is under ‘threat’ or has received a ‘fatal blow’. Administration of GST has the Union and States increasingly inter-twined, and for a State or some States to attempt their own GST regime would require a gigantic effort. And an equally compelling reason. 

At the same time, the Supreme Court’s observations clarify that States have enough elbow room, legally speaking, to pushback against an overbearing Union and  ensure that decision making on GST remains undergirded by dialogue, consensus and co-operation. The inter-dependence of the Union and States is not a utopian ideal – and the Supreme Court does paint a rosy picture of co-operative Indian federalism in its judgment – but, a practical need for both sides. 

[1] Union of India v Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd 2022 SCC OnLine SC 657. 

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. 

e-Commerce Operators Constitute a Distinct Category Under GST

by

In a notable judgment[1] delivered on 12 April 2023, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court opined that e-commerce operators (‘ECOs’) are a distinct category under CGST Act, 2017, opening interesting possibilities for future of e-commerce under the aegis of GST. The subject of challenge were two Notifications issued by the Union of India which withdrew GST exemption for passenger transportation services provided by auto-rickshaws mediated by ECOs. However, the same services provided by auto-rickshaws without mediation of ECOs continued to be exempt from GST.  

Arguments

The petitioners – which included Uber India and Pragatisheel Auto Rickshaw Driver Union – based their challenge on the following grounds:

first, the petitioners argued that the impugned Notifications were discriminatory as equally placed service providers were put in an unequal position in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that giving differential tax treatment to the same services based on the mode through which they were availed – offline versus online – lacked an intelligible differentia and was discriminatory against ECOs; second, the petitioners developed the Article 14 argument indirectly to state that the levy of GST must be based on the service and not on the medium used to avail the service; third, the petitioners argued that merely because ECOs had the (financial) ability to comply with GST obligations could not be a ground to levy tax on services offered via them; fourth, the petitioners argued that levy of GST would increase cost of transportation services provided through ECOs, which in turn would threaten the livelihood of auto rickshaw drivers which violated Article 19(1(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution.

The State argued that the distinction between services mediated by ECOs and without ECOs was valid since the ECOs were able to deploy their technology to provide value-added services to consumers which were not available if a person hailed auto-rickshaws on the roadside. Further, the State emphasised that both service providers were not equally placed: the tax exemption was given to auto-rickshaw drivers was because they possessed limited means to meet GST compliance requirements, while ECOs had the resources to meet such burdens. The State further defended the Notifications on the ground that it possessed wide leeway in enacting tax laws, and it could validly exercise its discretion to levy tax on certain transactions while providing tax exemption to others.   

Decision

The Delhi High Court agreed with the State and upheld the Notifications as valid and held that they were in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. The five core observations of the Delhi High Court are below:

First, based on a combined reading of Section 9(5), Section 24(ix) and Section 52, the Delhi High Court opined that the CGST Act, 2017 itself treats ECOs as a separate category. Section 9(5) provides that:

The Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify categories of services the tax on intra-State supplies of which shall be paid by the electronic commerce operator if such services are supplied through it, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such electronic commerce operator as if he is the supplier liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such services:   

Section 24(ix) requires that it shall be compulsory for every person to register under GST if he supplies goods or services or both through an ECO who is required to collect tax at source under Section 52. And Section 52 in turn provides that every ECO shall collect an amount not exceeding one per cent, of net value of taxable supplies made through it by other suppliers.

The Delhi High Court noted that Section 9(5) gives effect to a deeming fiction that an ECO is considered a supplier even when it is not making the supply, and under Section 52 an ECO is required to collect tax at source ‘even when the individual supplier itself is otherwise exempt from taxation as is evident from Section 24(ix) of the Act of 2017.’ (para 15.2) Though it would have been apposite to make a reference to Section 24(x) too, which prescribes compulsory registration for every ECO required to collect tax at source under Section 52. Based on the above, the High Court concluded that ECOs are a class distinct from individual suppliers. The High Court also referred to other Notifications under which supplies – such as those relating to hotel accommodation – made through ECOs were made taxable while they continued to be exempt if provided without mediation of ECOs.  

Second, as a corollary to the above observation, the Delhi High Court held that ECOs seeking parity with individual auto-rickshaw drivers were seeking equality amongst unequals. The High Court noted that rides booked through ECOs provided value added services such as: auto-rickshaw picking the consumer from his/her doorstep, ability to track the ride, multiple payment options, etc. The High Court highlighted the ability of ECOs to deploy technological and logistical capabilities to conclude that they were not similarly placed as individual suppliers. The High Court observed that while the quality of the physical ride does not differ if an auto-rickshaw is booked through ECO, the latter offered additional services which was a distinguishing factor.   

Third, the Delhi High Court found that the differentiation had a rational nexus with the object of CGST Act, 2017. The High Court endorsed the State’s argument that the object of CGST Act, 2017 was to levy tax on ‘every’ transaction of supply of goods and services. The Delhi High Court interpreting the objective of GST in such wide terms is not based on sound analysis and in fact it unjustly endorses GST as solely a revenue generating legislative instrument, not leaving room for any other policy objective. While a tax law is primarily a revenue generating mechanism, a welfare state does not and should not use it only for the said purpose, as various other policy objectives are also sought to be accomplished via tax laws.     

Fourth, the Delhi High Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the differentiation was only based on ‘mode’ of booking. The High Court observed, and correctly so, that the ECOs were not merely offering a ‘mode’ of booking. The High Court observed that the relationship of ECOs with both consumers and vendors/drivers was on a principal-to-principal basis. ECOs were charging commission from registered vendors and convenience charges from consumers. And in case of cancellation of rides, refunds, etc. ECOs were in fact stepping into shoes of a service provider and not just acting as an agent of service provider nor were they merely providing a ‘mode’ or a platform for booking the services.  

Fifth, the Delhi High Court negatived petitioner’s argument for continued GST exemption on the ground that the petitioner had no continued right to tax exemption. This was an endorsement of the States’ argument that it had wide leeway to enact tax laws. Also, as per the High Court, there was no constitutional guarantee or statutory entitlement to a continued exemption from payment of tax. While the High Court justified its conclusion by referring to the State’s right to levy tax, it was an inevitable conclusion once the High Court had endorsed the State’s argument that the purpose of CGST Act, 2017 was to levy tax on ‘every’ transaction of supply of goods and services. 

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s judgment is on defensible ground in so far as it reasons that ECOs constitute a separate category under CGST Act, 2017, though it could have been better articulated. Nonetheless, the Delhi High Court’s views could be used by the Revenue Department for various purposes: to prevent tax evasion, ensure greater transparency in e-commerce transactions, and otherwise collect revenue on transactions that may not be exigible to GST when undertaken solely via physical mode. See, for example, the following observation of the Delhi High Court:

The intent of Section 9(5) is to plug leaks in collection of GST and therefore, the Respondent is empowered under the said section to consolidate the liability to collect and pay tax for the services supplied through ECO. This is also evident from the provision of Section 52 of the Act of 2017. (para 17.6)

The Delhi High Court’s view that Section 9(5) of CGST Act, 2017 is an anti-tax evasion provision, will further empower the Revenue Department to impose additional obligations on ECOs. Not to mention, it is also helpful to the Revenue Department that the Delhi High Court has noted that ECOs are not comparable with individual suppliers, limiting the success of Article 14-based challenges to such measures.

Lastly, a vital sub-text of the Delhi High Court’s decision is that a taxable person possessing the financial ability to comply with GST obligations can be a valid ground of differentiation in certain circumstances. The State expressly argued that ECOs were subject to GST because they possessed the financial ability to adhere to additional obligations, which was impliedly endorsed by the Court. This opens the possibility for imposing additional GST compliance obligations on certain taxpayers and differentiating them from other taxpayers based on their ability to comply, though the validity and scope of this dictum will be tested in varied fact situations.      

[1] Uber India Systems Private Limited v Union of India 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2216.

LinkedIn