Madras High Court

Long Wait for GSTATs: July 2017 … and Counting. 

by

GSTATs have been envisaged as the first appellate forum under GST laws. And yet, 7.5 years since implementation of GST, not a single GSTAT is functioning. Reason? Many. Some are easy to identify, others are tough to understand. Nonetheless, here is a small story of the ill-fated GSTATs since the implementation of GST laws in July 2017. 

Provision is Declared Unconstitutional 

CGST Act, 2017, as originally enacted, provided that the no. of technical members in GSTATs would exceed the no. of judicial members. Both the Union and States wanted to ensure their representation on GSTATs via technical members which led to each GSTAT accommodating at least 2 technical members, i.e., technical member (Centre) and technical member (State). But CGST Act, 2017 provided for only one judicial member on the Bench of GSTAT. The Madras High Court ruled that the strength of technical members in tribunals cannot exceed that of judicial members, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The relevant provision – Section 109(9) as originally enacted – was struck down as unconstitutional. There was a simultaneous challenge on the ground of Article 14 wherein the petitioners argued that under CGST Act, 2017 advocates were not eligible to become members of GSTATs and it violated their fundamental right to equality. The High Court refused to accept this plea and requested the Union to reconsider the ineligibility of advocates. Making advocates ineligible to become members of GSTAT is rather strange since a similar disqualification does not exist for ITATs under the IT Act, 1961.     

No Appeal Against the Decision  

The Union didn’t appeal against the Madras High Court’s decision. Surprising, since the Union likes to defend all its decisions including its interpretation of tax statutes until the last possible forum. Or perhaps in this instance the Union decided it was prudent to agree with the High Court’s decision. Or it wanted to use the High Court’s decision as a shield to defend the delay in operationalizing GSTATs. Irrespective, the Union’s decision to not file an appeal against the High Court’s decision meant it had to explore options to operationalize the GSTATs. During 2019-2021, the GST Council did discuss the options and feasibility of GSTATs in various States and the required no. of Benches, but the discussions didn’t prove to be immediately fruitful. One possible option of breaking the logjam was by amending the respective provision of CGST Act, 2017. 

Provisions are Amended 

The Finance Act, 2023 amended the provisions relating to composition of GSTATs. Below are the relevant provisions before amendment and post-amendment respectively: 

Pre-Amendment

Section 109(3):

The National Bench of the Appellate Tribunal shall be situated at New Delhi which shall be presided over by the President and shall consist of one Technical Member (Centre) and one Technical Member (State). 

Section 109(9): 

Each State Bench and Area Benches of the Appellate Tribunal shall consist of a Judicial Member, one Technical Member (Centre) and one Technical Member (State) and the State Government may designate the seniormost Judicial Member in a State as the State President. 

Post-Amendment 

Section 109(3): 

The Government shall, by notification, constitute a Principal Bench of the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi which shall consist of the President, a Judicial Member, a Technical Member (Centre) and a Technical Member (State). 

Section 109(4): 

On request of the State, the Government may, by notification, constitute such number of State Benches at such places and with such jurisdiction, as may be recommended by the Council, which shall consist of two Judicial Members, a Technical Member (Centre) and a Technical Member (State). 

In summary, the amendments via the Finance Act, 2023 have ensured that the no. of judicial members are equal to technical members, if not more. This is because the President of GSTAT is usually the senior most judicial member. The balance of judicial and technical members needed to be met on two fronts: ensuring balance of representation between the Union and States inter-se needs and the balance between judicial and technical side to avoid executive domination. Now that the initial hurdle to constitute GSTATs was officially removed via Finance Act, 2023, one would have expected speedy and decisive steps towards constitution of GSTATs. But that wasn’t the case.  

Benches, Chairperson, Website … and Other Puny Steps 

Since the provisions relating to GSTATs have been amended, the Union has taken multiple – but tiny – steps towards operationalizing the GSTATs. With each step, the tax community has raised its hopes for quick operationalization of GSTATs. But each step seems a step too far. 

In May 2024, the Minister of Finance administered oath to the first President of GSTAT, New Delhi. Since GSTATs are not yet operational and do not hear cases, I’m not sure what the President of GSTAT does to earn his salary.  

In July 2024, in another step forward, the Ministry of Finance notified various Benches of GSTATs, with the Principal Bench in New Delhi. 

Recently, the tax community was rejoicing at GSTATs having a dedicated website. It is hard for me to understand the joy of having a functional website for an institution that itself isn’t functional. And the purpose of having a website is difficult to comprehend due to a recent report in January 2025, mentioning that GSTATs will take another 6 months to begin their functioning. When the formalities for appointing personnel have not completed, IT infrastructure is yet uncertain, and real estate for GSTATs has not been finalized, even 6 months seem like an ambitious target. Especially due to the track record of the Union and States on this aspect of GST.  

Constitutional Courts are Impatient  

Since GSTATs, ideally the first appellate forum for GST-related disputes, are not functioning, the burden has shifted to constitutional courts. High Courts and the Supreme Court end up hearing matters that typically should not have received attention beyond GSTATs. Supreme Court has recognized the effect of not having GSTATs and has recently raised the following query in one of its orders:

We would like to first know at the earliest why the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal has not been made functional till this date.  

The Union is supposed to reply to the above query in three weeks, but do not expect any fireworks and new revelations. 

Supreme Court’s question was prompted after it noted that the petitioner had the remedy to file an appeal under CGST Act, 2017 but had to approach the High Court via writ petition due to GSTATs not functioning. Many such cases that did not deserve or should not have been heard by High Courts and Supreme Court are currently in limbo because these constitutional courts do not have the advantage of GSTATs judgments and fact finding.   

Previously, the Allahabad High Court also tried to make the Union act quickly. But, despite the High Court’s eagerness to constitute GSTATs in the State of UP, there wasn’t much headway. 

Additionally, GSTATs are necessary to ensure harmony in interpretation and coherence in jurisprudence which has, for a long time, been at the mercy of AARs and AAARs. Both are intended to be interpretive bodies, not dispute resolution bodies but their several sub-par interpretations have caused tremendous confusion on various matters.

To conclude, I cannot say for sure when GSTATs will start functioning, but it is imperative that they do. And they function efficiently. A reform such as GST cannot be truly called a bold or a transformative reform until the accompanying rule of law infrastructure is operational. And GSTATs are a vital cog of that infrastructure. Until then, GST has certainly transformed the landscape of indirect tax in India. But, the promise of fair and speedy resolution of disputes remains a distant and unfulfilled promise.  

Fee for Technical Services: Future Demands Answers

by

Introduction 

Tax practitioners tend to refer to Fee for technical services (‘FTS’) and Royalty income in tandem with an intent to highlight the shape shifting nature of both concepts under domestic and international tax law. And in Indian context, the discussion is also about the high volume of litigation that both concepts invite. This article is an attempt to briefly highlight how the term FTS has been interpreted by Indian courts and whether in view of the technological advancements, specifically the ability to offer technical expertise without human intervention – such as with the help of AI bots – presents an opportunity and a challenge to re-orient the jurisprudence. And in which direction and based on which parameters should the reorientation happen? 

Fee for technical services is defined under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii), IT Act, 1961 as follows: 

Any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the head “Salaries”.  

The key phrase – also relevant for this article – that has invited judicial interpretation is: ‘rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services’. Courts have, at various times, emphasised the meaning of the above phrase by reading into it certain elements that are not found in the bare text of the provision. The two elements – relevant to this article – are: first, the requirement of providing a service as opposed to merely offering a facility; second, the presence of a human element as courts have taken the view that managerial, technical or consultancy services can be provided only by intervention of humans. The latter element is likely to come under scrutiny in the future as increasingly managerial, technical and, consultancy services are being and will be provided without direct involvement of human beings. The insistence of human element thus cannot and in my view, should not be insisted in each case to determine if a certain payment amounts to FTS. At the same time, will it be prudent to remove the human element altogether? What should be the legislative and judicial response to technological advancements such as AI bots be in this specific case? 

FTS under Section 9, IT Act, 1961: Rendering of Service and Requirement of Human Element 

In interpreting the requirements of Section 9, courts have taken the view that Explanation 2 contemplates rendering of service to the payer of fee and merely collecting a fee for use of a standard facility from those willing to pay for the fee would not amount to receiving a fee for technical services. This view has been reiterated in various decisions. For example, in one case, the Supreme Court was required to decide that if a company in the shipping business provides its agents access to an integrated communication system in order to enable them track the cargo efficiently, communicate better, and otherwise perform their work in an improved manner and thereafter charges the agents on a pro rata basis for providing the communication system, would the payments by agents amount to FTS? The Supreme Court relying on precedents concluded that: 

Once that is accepted and it is also found that the Maersk Net System is an integral part of the shipping business and the business cannot be conducted without the same, which was allowed to be used by the agents of the assessee as well in order to enable them to discharge their role more effectively as agents, it is only a facility that was allowed to be shared by the agents. By no stretch of imagination it can be treated as any technical services provided to the agents.

The service needs to be provided specifically to the customer/service recipient and merely providing access to a standardized facility and charging fee for using that facility would not amount to FTS. The service needs to specialized, exclusive, and meet individual requirements of the customer or user who may approach the service provider and only those kind of services can fall within the ambit of Explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(vii). This requirement may require tailoring in context of AI as a typical AI-assisted solution currently involves a programmed bot that can address a variety of situations. And such a situation raises lots of unanswered questions. Merely because one bot is providing different and differing solutions based on requirements of clients, would it be appropriate to say it is not rendering services? And subscription to the AI bot is merely a fee being paid by various customers? And that only if AI bot is specifically designed and customized to the clients current and anticipated needs would be the payment for such bot be termed as FTS? What if there are only minor variations in the standard bot that is providing services to various clients? The incremental changes would be enough to term the payment for such ‘customised’ AI bot as FTS? 

The second requirement that the Courts have insisted on for a payment to constitute as FTS is presence of human element. This element has been best explained by the Supreme Court in one of its judgments where it noted that the term manager and consultant and the respective management and consultancy services provided by them have a definite human element involved. The Supreme Court noted: 

… it is apparent that both the words ―”managerial” and ― “consultancy” involve a human element. And, both, managerial service and consultancy service, are provided by humans. Consequently, applying the rule of noscitur a sociis, the word ― “technical” as appearing in Explanation 2 to Section 9 (1) (vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element. (para 15) 

In the impugned case, the Supreme Court concluded that since the services being provided by sophisticated machines without human interface, it could not be said that the companies which were providing such services through machines were rendering FTS. Recently, the ITAT has also observed that the burden is on the Revenue to prove that in the course of rendition of services, the assessee transferred technical knowledge, know how, skill, etc. to the service recipient which enables the recipient to utilize it independently without the aid and assistance of the service provider. This was in the context of an online service provider, Coursera, which the Revenue argued was providing technical services to an educational institute in India. Coursera though successfully argued that it merely an aggregator and all contents of courses had been created by its customers. And it merely provided a customized landing page to the institutions and thus its role cannot be understood as that of provider of a technical service.   

Thus, the jurisprudence is relatively clear on the requirements of rendering a service, customized to the needs of the client and presence of a human element since the former cannot be provided without the latter. But, with the advent of AI and AI-assisted services, this may and should require us to rethink.    

Interpretation of IT Act, 1961 Needs to be Dynamic 

In a abovementioned case, the Madras High Court in interpreting scope of FTS under Section 9, IT Act, 1961 observed that when the provision was enacted human life was not surrounded by technological devices of various kinds and further noted that: 

Any construction of the provisions of the Act must be in the background of the realities of day-to-day life in which the products of technology play an important role in making life smoother and more convenient. Section 194J, as also Explanation 2 in Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act were not intended to cover the charges paid by the average house-holder or consumer for utilising the products of modern technology, such as, use of the telephone fixed or mobile, the cable T. V., the internet, the automobile, the railway, the aeroplane, consumption of electrical energy, etc. (para 17)

If one adopts the above view as one of the guiding principles for interpretation of IT Act, 1961, especially when it comes to the interface with technology, then there is a case to be made that the jurisprudence on FTS under Section 9 – as developed by courts over several years and through various decisions – needs to be keep abreast of the technological advances such as AI. Presence of human element is fundamental to classify a fee or an income as FTS and there is a defensible premise in courts insisting on it. However, as the Madras High noted in its above cited observation, IT Act, 1961 and the Explanation 2 were not drafted by contemplating all kinds of technological developments such AI-assisted services. One could argue, – and again it is a valid point – tax statutes need to be interpreted strictly and that the Courts should not read into the provision that human element is not required for ‘AI dependent services’ or ‘AI assisted services’ unless the statute is amended. But that is only a partial view of the challenge posed by AI. One could also argue that the human element was actually read into the definition of FTS by courts and it is not in the bare provision. Thereby making a case for some de minimis judicial intervention even in interpretation of tax statutes. And courts would be justified in developing a sui generis jurisprudence on FTS-AI interface even without the statutory amendment to that effect.  

I’m not sure of the exact and most appropriate response to the ‘AI-challenge’ and the tax lawyer in me does lean towards a statutory amendment to dispense with the human presence requirement. And this is not solely on the grounds that judiciary needs to adhere to strict interpretation of tax laws but also because a statutory amendment may be able to tailor the definition of FTS vis-à-vis AI in a more suitable fashion as opposed to judiciary-led interpretation which can be ad hoc and not sometimes only suited for limited fact situations. While any response – legislative or judicial – does not seem to be in the near horizon in India, I do believe and it is evident that AI is going to pose significant challenges to collection of taxes, the FTS example which is the focus of this article is only one such challenge. We need to be mindful of such emerging challenges and reflect on them suitably for considered responses catalyze a more appropriate tax policy solution.  

ESOPs-Related Compensation Present an Interesting Dilemma

by

Introduction 

Employee Stock Options (ESOPs) are typically taxable under the IT Act, 1961 in the following two instances: 

first, at the time of exercise of option by the employee as a perquisite. The rationale is that the employee has received a benefit by obtaining the share at a price below the market price and thereby the difference in the option price and the market price constitutes as a perquisite is taxable under the head ‘salaries.’ 

second, when the said stocks are sold by the employees, the gains realized are taxed as capital gains. 

In above respects, the law regarding taxability of ESOPs is well-settled. Of late, two cases – one decided by the Delhi High Court and another by the Madras High Court – have opined on another issue: taxability of compensation received in relation to ESOPs. Both the High Courts arrived at different conclusions on the nature of compensation received and its taxability. In this article I examine both the decisions in detail to highlight that determining the taxability of compensation received in relation to ESOPs – before exercising the options – is not a straightforward task and presents a challenge in interpreting the relevant provision and yet one may not have a completely acceptable answer to the issue. 

Facts 

The facts of both the cases are largely similar and in interest of brevity I will mention the facts as recorded in the Madras High Court’s judgment. The petitioner was an employee of Flipkart Interest Private Limited (FIPL) incorporated in India and a wholly owned subsidiary of Flipkart Marketplace Private Limited (FMPL) incorporated in Singapore. The latter was in turn a subsidiary of Flipkart Private Limited Singapore (FPS).

FPS implemented the Flipkart Employee Stock Option Scheme, 2012 under which stock options were granted to various employees and other persons approved by the Board. In April 2023, FPS announced compensation of US $43.67 per ESOP is view of the divestment of its stake in the PhonePe business. As per FPS, the divestment of PhonePe reduced the potential of stocks in respect for which ESOPs were offered to the employees. The compensation was payable to stakeholders in respect of vested options, but only to current employees in case of unvested options. FPS clarified that the compensation was being paid to the employees despite there being no legal or contractual obligation on its part to pay the said compensation. 

The petitioner received US$258,701.08 as compensation from FPS after deduction of tax at source under Section 192, IT Act, 1961 since the said compensation was treated by FPS as part of ‘salary’. The petitioner claimed that the compensation was a capital receipt and applied for a ‘nil’ TDS certificate arguing that the compensation was not taxable under the IT Act, 1961. But the petitioner’s application was denied against which the petitioner filed a writ petition and approached the Madras High Court. 

Characterizing the Compensation – Summary of Arguments  

The petitioner’s arguments for treating the compensation as a capital receipt were manifold: 

First, that the petitioner continued to hold all the ESOPs after receipt of compensation and since there was no transfer of capital assets, no taxable capital gains can arise from the impugned transaction. 

Second, the compensation received by the petitioner was not a consideration for relinquishment of the right to sue since the compensation was discretionary in nature. The petitioner did not have a right to sue FPS if the said compensation was not awarded. 

Third, in the context of taxable capital gains: IT Act, 1961 contains machinery and computation provisions for taxation of all capital gains which are absent in the impugned case. In the absence of computation provisions relating to compensation received in relation to ESOPs and lack of identification of specific provisions under which such compensation is taxable, the petitioner argued that attempt to tax the compensation should fail.    

Fourth, the petitioner before the Delhi High Court was an ex-employee of FIPL and the petitioner relied on the same to argue that the compensation received in relation to ESOP cannot be treated as a salary or a perquisite since it was a one-time voluntary payment by FPS in relation to ESOPs. 

The State resisted petitioner’s attempt to carve the compensation out of the scope of salaries and perquisites. The primary argument seemed to be that the petitioner’s ESOPs had a higher value when FPS held stake in the PhonePe businesss, and on divestment of its stake, the value of ESOPs declined and thus petitioner had a right to sue for the decline in value of ESOPs. The compensation paid to the petitioner, the State argued was a consideration for relinquishment of the right to sue and the said relinquishment amounted to transfer of a capital asset. 

ESOPs are not a Capital Asset – Madras High Court

The Madras High Court was categorical in its conclusion that ESOPs are not a capital asset, and neither was there any transfer of capital asset in the impugned case. Section 2(14), IT Act, 1961 defines a capital asset as – 

  • property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession;

Explanation 1 of the provision clarifies that property includes rights in or in relation to a company.  Since the petitioner did not hold any rights in relation to an Indian company, Explanation 1 was inapplicable to the impugned case. 

The Madras High Court examined the petitioner’s rights and observed that under the ESOP scheme, petitioner had a right to receive the shares subject to exercise of options as per terms of the scheme. And only in case of breach of obligation by the employer would the petitioner have a right to sue for compensation. Apart from the above, the petitioner had no right to a compensation nor was there a guarantee that value of its ESOPs would not be impaired. Accordingly, the Madras High Court correctly held that:  

In the absence of a contractual right to compensation for diminution in value, it cannot be said that a non-existent right was relinquished. As discussed earlier, the ESOP holder has the right to receive shares upon exercise of the Option in terms of the FSOP 2012 and the right to claim compensation if such right were to be breached. But, here, the compensation was not paid for relinquishment of ESOPs or of the right to receive shares as per the FSOP 2012. In fact, the admitted position is that the petitioner retains all the ESOPs and the right to receive the same number of shares of FPS subject to Vesting and Exercise. Upon considering all the above aspects holistically, I conclude that ESOPs do not fall within the ambit of the expression “property of any kind held by an assessee” in Section 2(14) and are, consequently, not capital assets. As a corollary, the receipt was not a capital receipt. (para 29)

The Madras High Court concluded since the petitioner did not exercise any option in respect of vested ESOPs, no shares of FPS were issued or allotted to it meaning there was no transfer of capital asset either. Thus, in the absence of a right to receive compensation for diminution in value of ESOPs or  transfer of capital assets it cannot be said that the petitioner was paid compensation for relinquishment of the right to sue or had received taxable capital gains. 

ESOPs are not Perquisites – Delhi High Court 

The second primary question which engaged both the Delhi and the Madras High Court was whether the compensation received by the petitioner constituted as perquisite under Section 17, IT Act, 1961. Section 17(2)(vi), IT Act, 1961 states that a perquisite includes: 

the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares allotted or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former employer, free of cost or at concessional rate to the assessee. 

To begin with, let me elaborate on the Delhi High Court’s reasoning and conclusion. 

In trying to interpret if the compensation received by the petitioner would fall within the remit of Section 17(2)(vi), IT Act, 1961 the Delhi High Court observed that a literal interpretation of the provision reveals that the value of specified securities or sweat equity shares is dependent on the exercise of options by the petitioner. An income can only be included in the definition of perquisite if it is generated by exercise of options by an employee. The High Court added: 

Under the facts of the present case, the stock options were merely held by the petitioner and the same have not been exercised till date and thus, they do not constitute income chargeable to tax in the hands of the petitioner as none of the contingencies specified in Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act have occurred. (para 25)

The Delhi High Court further added that the compensation could not be considered as perquisite since: 

… it is elementary to highlight that the payment in question was not linked to the employment or business of the petitioner, rather it was a one-time voluntary payment to all the option holders of FSOP, pursuant to the disinvestment of PhonePe business from FPS. In the present case, even though the right to exercise an option was available to the petitioner, the amount received by him did not arise out of any transfer of stock options by the employer. Rather, it was a one- time voluntary payment not arising out of any statutory or contractual obligation. (para 27)

The Delhi High Court’s above reasoning and conclusion are defensible on the touchstone of strict interpretation of tax statutes. Unless the stocks were allotted or transferred, the conditions specified in Section 17(2)(vi) were not satisfied ensuring the compensation is outside the scope of the impugned provision. Further, the fact of petitioner being an ex-employee influenced the High Court in de-linking the compensation from employment of the petitioner.   

ESOPs are Perquisites – Madras High Court 

The Madras High Court went a step further than the Delhi High Court and also examined Explanation (a) to Section 17(2)(vi) which states that:

“specified security” means the securities as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) and, where employees’ stock option has been granted under any plan or scheme therefor, includes the securities offered under such plan or scheme; (emphasis added)

The Madras High Court emphasised three aspects of the Explanation: first, that the petitioner admittedly received the ESOPs under a ‘plan or scheme’, i.e., Flipkart Employee Stock Option Scheme, 2012; second, that the use of word ‘includes’ in the latter part indicates that the phrase ‘securities offered under such plan or scheme’ is not meant to be exhaustive; third, that follows from the second is that ‘specified security’ in the context of ESOPs does not include shares ‘allotted’ but also includes securities ‘offered’ to the holder of ESOPs. 

The Madras High Court further added that in order to tax the compensation received by the petitioner as a perquisite, the benefit flowing to the petitioner must be ascertained. That though was not a difficult task as the High Court noted, in its own words: 

ESOPs were clearly granted to the petitioner as an Employee under the FSOP 2012. If payments had been made by the petitioner in relation to the ESOPs, it would have been necessary to deduct the value thereof to arrive at the value of the perquisite. Since the petitioner did not make any payment towards the ESOPs and continues to retain all the ESOPs even after the receipt of compensation, the entire receipt qualifies as the perquisite and becomes liable to be taxed under the head “salaries”. (para 40)

The Madras High Court’s interpretation of the impugned provision also adheres to a strict interpretation of the statute. And one crucial reason its conclusion differs from that of the Delhi High Court is because the Madras High Court also took note of the Explanation to Section 17(2)(vi) and interpreted it strictly to include within the remit of perquisite not only share allotted or transferred but also shares securities offered under a plan or scheme. And before exercise of options by an employee, the ESOPs can be accurately understood as an offer for securities. 

One could, however, argue as to whether the legislative intent was to tax and include within the remit of perquisite a one-off compensation by the company to a person who had yet to exercise their options or was the intent to cover all kinds of securities offered and allotted to the option grantee. But, the counterargument is that legislative intent is difficult to ascertain in this particular case and the manner in which the Madras High Court interpreted Explanation(a) alongside Section 17(2)(vi) reveals adherence to strict interpretation, which in itself is reflective of manifesting legislative intent. Additionally, one could argue that the compensation is included in ‘value of securities offered’ since it was meant to compensate the option grantee for diminution in value of securities in relation to which ESOPs were offered. One could also argue that the Delhi High Court treated the ‘exercise of options’ as a taxable event under Section 17(2)(vi), which is a correct reading of the provision. And that the High Court not acknowledging Explanation(a) since the latter cannot expand the former’s scope. I do feel that there are several persuasive arguments but not one overarching clenching argument in this particular issue.   

Conclusion 

I’ve attempted a detailed analysis of both the judgments with a view to provide clarity on the interpretive approach and reasoning of both the High Courts on the issue. While both the High Courts adopted a strict interpretive approach, the Madras High Court by taking cognizance of the Explanation alongside the provision arrived at a conclusion that was at variance with the Delhi High Court.

Prima facie though, the provisions as they exist today do not seem to contemplate compensation received by an option grantee before the exercise of options. Regarding ESOPs, there are two taxable scenarios contemplated – on exercise of options and on sale of securities – and taxability of compensation, it seems can only be read into the relevant provisions – specifically Section 17(2)(vi) – by a process of interpretation. As the Madras High Court itself noted the compensation paid in the impugned case was atypical creating the conundrum of whether it was taxable under the relevant provisions. Ambiguity in a charging provision should ideally be resolved in favor of the assessee, but the Madras High Court clearly did not think there was an ambiguity and neither did the Delhi High Court for that matter. Thus, creating a scenario of multiple possibilities with more than one valid interpretive approach.

Powers of Arrest under GST: Unravelling the Phrase ‘Committed an Offence’

by

CGST Act, 2017 provides the Commissioner power to arrest under specific circumstances. Section 69, CGST Act, 2017 states that: 

Where the Commissioner has reasons to believe that a person committed any offence specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 132 which is punishable under clause (i) or (ii) of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) of the said section, he may, by order, authorise any officer or central tax to arrest such person. (emphasis added)   

There are several aspects of the power to arrest under GST that were and are under scrutiny of courts. For example, scope and meaning of the phrase ‘reason to believe’ remains open-ended even though the same phrase has a long standing presence under the IT Act, 1961. In this post, I will focus on judicial understanding of the phrase ‘committed an offence’ and its implication. Similar phrase and powers of arrest were provided in pre-GST laws as well, e.g., under Finance Act, 1994 which implemented service tax in India. Section 91, Finance Act, 1994 provided that: 

If the Commissioner of Central Excise has reason to believe that any person has committed any offencespecified in clause (i) or clause (ii) of section 89, he may, by general or special order, authorise any officer of Central Excise, not below the rank of Superintendent of Central Excise, to arrest such person. (emphasis added)     

The tenor and intent of both the above cited provisions is similar. The power to arrest has been entrusted to a relatively senior officer, who must have a ‘reason to believe’ that the person in question has ‘committed an offence’. Courts have made divergent observations on the meaning of the phrase ‘committed an offence’. Typically, a person is said to have committed an offence under a tax statute once the adjudication proceedings are completed and the quantum of tax evaded/not deposited is determined by the relevant tax authority after receiving a statement from the accused. In some cases, the tax officers have been found wanting in patience and have initiated arrests without completing the adjudication proceedings of establishing commission of an offence. Courts have made certain observations on the validity and permissibility of such a course of action.  

Pre-GST Interpretation 

There are two broad ways to interpret the above arrest-related provisions vis-à-vis commission of offence. First, the officer in question is in possession of credible material which provides it a ‘reason to believe’ that a taxpayer or other person has committed the offence(s) in question. In such a situation, the officer can authorise arrest of such person without completing the adjudication proceedings. Second, the officer’s reason to believe cannot – by itself – trigger powers of arrest, but the adjudication proceedings need to be completed to ascertain the amount of tax payable. The adjudication proceedings typically require issuance of a showcause notice to the taxpayer, and on receiving representation from the taxpayer the proceedings are completed by issuance of an order/assessment determining the tax payable by such person. Arrests can only happen once the adjudication proceedings have been completed and quantum of tax payable has been determined. The Delhi High Court – interpreting the relevant provisions of Finance Act, 1994 – in MakemyTrip case affirmed that the latter constituted the position of law and stated that authorities cannot without issuance of a showcause notice or enquiry or investigation arrest a person merely on the suspicion of evasion of service tax or failure to deposit the service tax collected. The High Court added: 

Therefore, while the prosecution for the purposes of determining the commission of an offence under Section 89 (1) (d)of the FA and adjudication proceedings for penalty under Section 83 A of the FA can go on simultaneously, both will have to be preceded by the adjudication for the purposes of determining the evasion of service tax. The Petitioners are, therefore, right that without any such determination, to straightaway conclude that the Petitioners had collected and not deposited service tax in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs and thereby had committed a cognizable offence would be putting the cart before the horse. This is all the more so because one consequence of such determination is the triggering of the power to arrest under Section 90 (1) of the FA. (para 78)

The only exceptions to the above rule as per the High Court was that if the taxpayer is a habitual offender, doesn’t file the tax returns on time and has a repeated history of defaults. The Supreme Court, in a short order, upheld and endorsed the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of the law. Various other courts, such as the Bombay High Court in ICICI Bank Ltd case, also took the view that adjudication proceedings should precede any coercive actions by tax officers.       

Courts in the above cases seem to be guided by at least two things: first, that the powers of arrest and recovery of tax are coercive actions and shouldn’t be resorted to in a whimsical fashion; second, establishing the ‘commission of an offence’ can only happen through adjudication proceedings and not based on opinion of the relevant officer, even if the opinion satisfies the threshold of ‘reason to believe’. Insisting on completion of adjudication proceedings also ensures that the ingredient of ‘commission of an offence’ prescribed in the provision is satisfied. Again, this is for the simple reason that an officer’s reason to believe that an offence has been committed is not the same as establishing that an offence has been committed in adjudication proceedings. The latter also provides the accused an opportunity to respond and make their representation instead of directly facing coercive action. 

Rapidly Swinging Pendulum under GST

Similar question has repeatedly arisen under GST, with no satisfactory answer one way or the other. While some High Courts have relied on the MakemyTrip case, others have suggested otherwise. The contradictory opinions can be highlighted by two cases. In Raj Punj case, the Rajasthan High Court deciding a case involving false invoices and fake ITC held that the petitioner’s contention that tax should be first determined under Sections 73 and 74 of CGST Act, 2017 does not have any force and the Department can proceed straightaway by issuing summons or if reasonable grounds are available by arresting the offender. (para 21) The High Court curiously added that determination of tax is not required if an offence is committed under Section 132, CGST Act, 2017. The observation is curious because Section 132(l), CGST Act, 2017 clearly links the penalty and imprisonment to the amount of tax evaded or amount of ITC wrongfully availed.  

The Madras High Court in M/s Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd case though had a different opinion. The High Court held that use of the word ‘commits’ in Section 132, CGST Act, 2017 made it clear that an act of committal of an offence had to be fixed before punishment was imposed. And that recovery of excess ITC claimed can only be initiated once it has been quantified by way of procedure set out in Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The High Court endorsed the approach and interpretation adopted in the MakemyTrip case and added that its view was similar in that an exception to the procedure of assessement is available in case of habitual offenders. 

What is the reason for invoking arrest powers before completing adjudication proceedings? Various. First, the Supreme Court’s observations in Radheshyam Kejriwal case that criminal prosecution and adjudication proceedings can be launched simultaneously, and both are independent of each other. While the Supreme Court was right in noting that both proceedings are independent of each other, it did not specifically opine on the inter-relation of adjudication proceedings and arrest. Second, if there is reason to believe that a large amount of tax has been evaded, arrests are justified by tax officers by arguing that they are necessary for protection of revenue’s interest. Third, evidentiary or other reasons can be invoked as failure to arrest the suspects may lead to destruction of evidence of tax evasion. And various other reasons that can be clubbed under the broader umbrella of expediency and revenue’s interest. The exceptions will always be recognized – as in the MakemyTrip case – the question is the boundary and scope of such exceptions tends to be malleable and there is little that can be done to address the issue.     

Way Forward 

The Supreme Court is currently seized of the matter involving scope of the powers of arrest under GST. While I’m unaware of the precise grounds of appeal before the Supreme Court, the issues broadly involve the scope of powers of arrest, pre-conditions for invoking the powers of arrest, the exceptions, and possibility of the misuse of powers of arrest. The latter have been indirectly acknowledged and ‘Guidelines’ have been issued, exhorting officers not invoke powers of arrest in a routine and mechanical manner. And only make arrest where ‘palpable’ guilty mind is involved. There is empirical data – yet – that can establish the efficacy or otherwise of the guidelines. And Supreme Court may enunciate its own set of guidelines in its judgment. But, as the cliché goes, the proof pudding is in its eating. Powers of arrest are necessary to create the necessary deterrent effect: minimize and detect tax evasion. At the same time, frequent resort to coercive powers under a tax statute adversely affects business freedoms. The balancing act is tough to achieve. I’ve written elsewhereabout the uncertainty that bedevils this area of law, and I suspect little is going to change in the instantly. Supreme Court’s judgment may provide a guiding light, but one should temper one’s expectations and not hope for a magic wand that may, at once, resolve a tricky issue.    

Post-Supply Discounts Cannot be Included in Transaction Value: Madras HC

by

The Madras High Court recently observed that post-supply discounts offered by a supplier to the recipient cannot be included in the transaction value/value of supply for levying GST. The High Court distinguished between subsidy offered by a third party and a discount and noted that a discount by itself cannot qualify as subsidy.  

Introduction to Taxability of Discounts under GST  

Before discussing the case, I think it is important to provide contest of the type of discounts envisaged under CGST Act, 2017 and their manner of inclusion and exclusion from the value of supply. 

Section 15, CGST Act, 2017 contains stipulations as to which amounts can or cannot be included in the value of a taxable supply, where both the recipient and supplier are not related, and price paid or payable is the sole consideration for supply. Section 15(3)(a) states that discounts offered at the time of or before a supply shall not be included in the value of supply in such discount has been duly recorded in the invoice in respect of such supply. Section 15(3)(b), which was in focus in the impugned case, states that a discount after a supply has been effected shall not be part of value of supply if: (i) such discount is established in terms of agreement entered into at or before the time of such supply and specifically linked to relevant invoices; (ii) ITC as is attributable to the discount on the basis of the document issued by the supplier has been reversed by the recipient of the supply. 

Typically, discounts offered before or at the time of supply are excluded from the value at the time of generation of invoice itself. While discounts offered after the supply cannot, due to their nature be reflected in the invoice per se, but the value can be reduced by filing credit notes thereafter and linking it to the supply in question. It is the latter kind of discount that was the Madras High Court’s focus in the impugned case.  

Facts and Arguments  

The facts of the impugned case were not clearly stated by the Madras High Court in its judgment, but from what one can gather it seems: the petitioner challenged the inclusion of volume discount in the value of supply and the Revenue Department’s stance that the discount was a ‘private’ subsidy. Under Section 15(2)(e) subsidies directly linked to the price are included in the value of supply except subsidies provided by the Central and State Governments. The petitioner’s case was that it paid GST on the transaction value in the invoice which includes the volume discount, and the Revenue Department cannot add the volume discount over and above the invoice amount as it would to double taxation on the same amount. The petitioner contended a manufacturer would incentivize the distributors to sell mobile phones on a discount and such discount cannot be construed as a subsidy under Section 15(2)(e). 

The Revenue Department seems to have added the discount value to the invoice by claiming that the discount is a subsidy by a third party and amounts to consideration under Section 2(31)(b), CGST Act, 2017. The Revenue Department’s order under challenge before the High Court also mentioned that the after-supply discount must be as per the terms agreed and based on certain parameters and workable criteria. And a discount cannot be offered at the complete discretion of the supplier. The Madras High Court held that the order was unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 

Madras High Court Decides 

The Madras High Court made three observations that were vital to the dispute and are our understanding of when post-supply discounts can or cannot be included in the value of supply: 

First, the High Court observed that Section 15(2)(e) of CGST Act, 2017 will only come into play when a part of the consideration payable for the supply is subsidized by third party other than the Central Government or the State Government. While this is a straightforward interpretation of the impugned provision, it is a necessary clarification for frequently some basic and obvious things need to be made clear to the Revenue Department. (para 45)

Second, the High Court observed that a subsidy will be embedded in the transaction value only if it disguised as a discount. However, a discount by itself will not qualify as a subsidy. (para 48) A discount will only be part of the transaction value if it is on account of a subsidy offered by a third party. The High Court was trying to distinguish the discount offered by a supplier on their own account and a discount offered due to contribution by a third party; the latter being a ‘private’ subsidy that was liable to be included in the value of supply and the former being a discount that as per Section 15(3)(a) and/or Section 15(3)(b), whichever is applicable, not being part of the value of supply. While this an important distinction, it still leaves open the question of how a discount is to identified and distinguished from a ‘private’ subsidy. We do know that a discount does not by itself become a subsidy, but we don’t know when they transform into a subsidy. 

Third, the High Court stated the discount can only impact the transaction value of the supplier and its recipient. And there is no scope for confusing the further supply made by the recipient and the sale it effected to its customers and the discount it offered. (paras 51-52) 

As I stated above, the High Court did not narrate the facts clearly, so it is difficult to understand some of its observations especially the third observation listed above. But, after reading the judgment, it does seem that in this case this is what transpired: 

A supplied goods to B, which included the price of volume discounts and GST was calculated by including the value of volume discounts. When B further supplied those goods to C on a discounted value, the Revenue Department included the discount value offered by B in the transaction value of supply made from A to B contending that the discount offered by B to C was a subsidy provided by A to B. This not only caused the possibility of double taxation of the discount, but also inter-relating two different supplies and not treating them independent of each other. The value of supply from A to B was calculated in reference to the value of supply from B to C and the High Court frowned on the same. 

Conclusion 

The Madras High Court’s judgment is succinct on its findings on law and almost equally precise on the facts, though the latter lack clarity which is an impediment to completely understanding its approach to the underlying dispute. Despite the hiccups in comprehension, the High Court’s findings on law are welcome and clarify an important aspect on the GST implications of discounts and their impact on the value of supply.             

Supply of Vouchers and GST: Three Decisions and a Defensible Conclusion

by

This article focuses on the issue raised by M/s Kalyan Jewellers Limited (‘Kalyan Jewellers’) as regards the pre-paid instruments (‘PPI’)/vouchers issued by them to their customers. The claim of Kalyan Jewellers before the Advance Authority (‘AAR’), Appellate body for Advance Rulings (‘AAAR’), and thereafter before the Madras High Court was that the PPIs/vouchers issued by them were actionable claims. And due to the exemption of actionable claims under Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017, the supply of PPIs was not subject to GST. Section 2(1) of CGST Act, 2017 defines actionable claims to have the same meaning as assigned to them under Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which inter alia defines it as a claim to any debt other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property or by hypothecation or pledge of movable property. And Schedule III of CGST Act, 2017 – as it existed then – stated that actionable claims, other than lottery, betting and gambling shall neither be treated as supply of goods nor supply of services. AAR, AAAR, and the Madras High Court all three adopted varied perspectives on the issue, and I examine all three below.     

AAR and AAAR Adopt Different Perspectives 

PPIs issued by Kalyan Jewellers directly or through third party vendors could be redeemed at any store of Kalyan Jewellers across India. PPIs were purchased by customers by paying a value of money specified on the PPI, and on payment the value was loaded on the PPI. And the customers could redeem the PPI against purchase of any jewellery in any of the outlets of Kalyan Jewellers. Kalyan Jewellers’ claim was that GST was only attracted when customers redeemed their PPIs, since the goods were sold at the time of redemption of PPIs and not at the time of supply of PPIs.

AAR observed that if the customer loses the PPI or is unable to produce it before expiry it cannot be used to purchase any goods. Based on the limited use of PPI, AAR concluded that PPI was not an actionable claim but only an instrument accepted as consideration/part consideration while purchasing goods from a specific supplier whose identity was established in the PPI. AAR held that PPIs constitute vouchers as defined under Section 2(118) of CGST Act, 2017 which states as follows: 

“voucher” means an instrument where there is an obligation to accept it as consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods or services or both and where the goods or services or both to be supplied or the identities of their potential suppliers are either indicated on the instrument itself or in related documentation, including the terms and conditions of use of such instrument; 

Relying on the above definition, the fact that PPI belongs to the customer who purchases it and is allowed to redeem it, AAR concluded that PPIs issued by Kalyan Jewellers are neither money nor actionable claims. And since other ingredients of a supply were fulfilled, the issuance of PPIs constituted as a supply.

The remaining question was that of time of supply, i.e., should GST be payable at the time of issuance of vouchers or at the time of their redemption by the customers? Time of supply where vouchers are involved is mentioned in Section 12(4), CGST Act, 2017 where it is stated that the time of supply shall be the date of issue of voucher, if the supply is identifiable at that point; or the date of redemption of voucher in all other cases. And since PPIs were redeemable against any jewellery, the time of supply in this case was held to be at the time of redemption of PPIs.     

Kalyan Jewellers filed an appeal before AAAR on the ground that PPIs only had a redeemable value but no inherent value capable of being marketable for the purpose of levy of GST. Kalyan Jewellers repeated its argument that PPIs are not actionable claims or goods and if their supply is subject to GST it would amount to double taxation since GST would also be paid at the time of supply of jewellery. AAAR adopted an interesting to determine the issue. AAAR held that PPI in question was neither a good nor a service, but it was not necessary to arrive at a determination if it was an actionable claim. 

AAAR categorized the PPI as a voucher, like AAR’s approach, but added its own observations. AAAR held that voucher is just means of an advance payment of consideration and per se it is neither a good nor a service. (para 7.9) It clarified that there was no issue of double taxation for if GST was levied at the time of issuance of PPI no GST would be payable at the time of its redemption. And whether supply of PPIs is taxable at the time of their supply or their redemption would be determined by the fact if the underlying supply is identifiable at that point. AAAR concluded that since the PPIs mentioned that they can be redeemed against gold jewellery at a known rate of tax, they were taxable at the time of their supply. (para 7.11) And since the PPI was neither a good or a service, it was classifiable as per the goods or services supplied on its redemption.      

It is interesting to note that Kalyan Jewellers was insistent that their PPIs be classified as actionable claims and not be subject to GST at the time of their supply but only at the time of their redemption. AAR and AAAR pretty much sidestepped the issue of actionable claim. Both the AAR and AAAR made one common observation, and in my view correctly so, that PPIs satisfied the definition of voucher and were means of consideration, treating the issue of whether PPIs were actionable claims as incidental and almost unnecessary. 

Madras High Court Goes a Step Ahead 

One would assume that AAAR’s succinct and accurate identification of PPI as vouchers would end the matter of taxability of PPIs issued by Kalyan Jewellers; but, that was not to be. Kalyan Jewellers appealed AAAR’s appealed before the Madras High Court and made similar arguments and claims it made before AAR and AAAR, i.e., PPIs issued by it were actionable claims and were subject to GST only at the time of their redemption and not at the time of their issuance. (paras 12-13) 

Madras High Court went a step further than both AAR and AAAR to interpret the definition of voucher, actionable claims and debt in significant detail and referred to the relevant provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Educational Guide issued under Finance Act, 1994. The High Court concluded that the PPIs issued by Kalyan Jewellers were a debt instrument as they acknowledged debt and could be redeemed on a future date towards sale consideration on purchase of any merchandise from the Kalyan Jewellers outlet. And if Kalyan Jewellers refused to redeem the value of PPI, the customer would have a right to enforce. 

Another factor that influenced the Madras High Court’s conclusion that PPI was an actionable claim was its attention to the fact that while the PPIs issued by Kalyan Jewellers mentioned that the customers would not be entitled to refund if PPIs expire before redemption, the said condition was not in accordance with RBI’s Master Directions on PPIs. The High Court clarified that even if the PPI expires before the customer claims refund, the customer would be entitled to claim refund. Accordingly, the High Court clarified that:

The “Gift Voucher/Card” is a debit card. It is like a frozen cash received in advance and thaws on its presentation at the retail outlet for being set off against the amount payable by a customer for purchase of merchandise sold by the petitioner or the amount specified therein is to be returned to the customer as per RBI’s Master Direction where a customer fails to utilize it within the period of its validity. (para 72)  

While the Madras High Court held that the PPI was an actionable claim, it also partially endorsed the AAAR’s approach that there was no need to determine if the voucher was an actionable claim to conclude that it was neither a good nor a service. As per the High Court it was sufficient to state that since PPIs were actionable claims, they were ‘as such’ not liable to taxation themselves, but only the underlying transactions were taxable. Here again, the implication of PPIs being not liable to GST as such is not clear, since PPIs are anyways liable to tax only in reference to the supply of goods or services that they facilitate. So while the High Court did finally endorse PPIs as actionable claims, it did not, and as per me, will not materially affect their taxability.    

Finally, the High Court’s conclusion was correct as it clarified that the PPI/voucher being the means of consideration could not be subject to GST, but only the goods or services purchased via it were taxable. Of course, presuming the other prescribed ingredients of supply were satisfied. (paras 79-80) As regards the time of supply, the High Court’s opinion was similar to that AAR and AAAR and there was no substantial change i.e., if goods were identifiable at the time of supply of vouchers that would constitute as time of supply else time of supply would be the date of redemption of vouchers. 

Is the Dust Settled on GST Implications of Vouchers? 

Has the Madras High Court’s opinion finally settled the dust on PPIs and their status as actionable claims under GST? I doubt it. The High Court in its decision cited the Karnataka High Court’s decision in M/s Premier Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd, where the latter made two observations that are slightly at odds with the impugned decision. The Karnataka High Court observed that PPIs do not have any inherent value of their own but are instruments of consideration and would fall under the definition of money under CGST Act, 2017. And money has been specifically excluded from the definition of both goods and services. (para 16) Second, the Karnataka High Court held that the issuance of PPIs was akin to a pre-deposit and their issuance did not amount to supply. (para 22) The Madras High Court cited the latter observations of the Karnataka High Court. (para 96) But, the Madras High Court never indicated if it agreed or disagreed with the Karnataka High Court’s approach. And, the difference in opinion of both the High Courts raises the question if PPIs are better classified as money or actionable claims?  

One way to understand this issue is by viewing vouchers as a sub-category of money. Vouchers serve the purpose of consideration or part consideration for goods or services while money, in its traditional form, also performs the same function. PPIs are also typically instruments or forms of consideration. And since PPIs also typically contain identities of suppliers, they tend to satisfy all ingredients of a voucher as in the impudnged case and are better understood as such. While the current divergence between the two High Courts on the actual character of PPIs, did not create any immediate implications in both cases, since both money and actionable claims are outside the purview of GST per se. The divergent interpretations of both the High Courts may present hurdles going forward and will require some reconciliation. 

Conclusion 

On balance, the Madras High Court’s decision is well-reasoned and, in my view, correctly identifies the status of PPIs. The High Court could have, like the AAAR chosen to not adjudicate on the issue of whether PPIs constitute an actionable claim, since the point of their taxability could have been decided only by a reference to the definition of vouchers. However, it scrutinized the key phrases and referred to various legislations and arrived at a justifiable conclusion creating a solid anchor for jurisprudence on the issue of GST implications of PPIs. 

Religious Vows and Income Tax Obligations: Harmony to Clash 

by

The Supreme Court is currently seized of a matter which, at its core, involves determining to what extent do the religious beliefs of a person exempt them from withholding tax obligations under the IT Act, 1961. In this article, I will focus on the issues involved and refer to the relevant judgments of the Madras High Court – Single Judge Bench and Division Bench, as well as the judgment of a Single Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court, currently under appeal before a Division Bench. The judgments reveal differing opinions and unravel layers of the central dilemma – should interpretation of tax law accommodate personal religious beliefs, or should tax law be indifferent to religious beliefs, irrespective of the hardship it may cause.    

Background 

The controversy involved nuns, sisters, priests, or fathers who provided their services as teachers in schools. The schools were provided grant-in-aid by the State Government under its grant-in-aid scheme. Christian religious institutions/religious congregations (‘societies’) which controlled the schools and represented the cause of the teachers before the High Court(s) contended that the teachers were bound by Canon law as they taken vows of poverty to the Christ. As a result of their vows, the teachers had suffered a civil death, were incapable of owning property and thus their salaries belonged to the society in question. The teachers were obligated to ‘make over’ their salaries to the societies and did not possess any title over them. And it was the society which accounted for the money in its tax returns and not the teachers. In view of the above, the petitioners contended that the salaries of teachers cannot be subjected to deduction of tax at source as stipulated under IT Act, 1961.  

Before I summarise the arguments adopted by the parties, it is vital to understand the successive Circulars and Instructions issued by CBDT on the issue. I’ve summarised the content of each Circular in a chronological fashion.  

Circular No.5 of 1940, issued on 02.01.1940: Medical fees, examination fees or any other kind of fees received by the missionaries are taxable in the hands of the missionaries themselves, even though they are required by terms of their contracts to make over the fees to the societies. The Circular stated that not only does the accrual happen in favor of the missionaries but there is an actual receipt by them. 

Circular No.1 of 1944, issued on 24.01.1944: Cited the principle of diversion of income and noted that the fees received by missionaries is not their income and clarified that where a missionary employee collects fees in payment of bills due to the institution, the amount collected will income of the institution and not of the employee. No income tax will be collected on fees received by missionaries for services rendered by them which as per their conditions of service they are required to make over to the society. 

Circular F. No. 200/88/75-II (AI), issued on 05.12.1977: Referred to the Circular of 1944 and reiterated that since the fees received by the missionaries is to be made over to the congregation there is an overriding title to the fees which would entitle the missionaries exemption from payment of income tax. 

CBDT Letter, F. No. 385/10/2015-IT (B), issued on 26.02.2016: Observed that the Circular of 1944, which was reiterated in 1977, was only applicable on amounts received as fees as payment of bills due to the institutions and does not cover salaries and pensions. And while Circular of 1977 mentions the word ‘salary’, the operative portion only dealt with fees. 

CBDT Letter, F. No. 385/10/2015-IT (B), issued on 07.04.2016: Reiterated the position in previous letter and noted that salary and pension earned by member of congregation in lieu of services rendered by them in their individual capacity are taxable in the hands of members even if same are made over to the congregation. No exemption from TDS is envisaged under the Circulars and Instructions of the Board. 

The shift in stance on TDS obligations, from 1944 to 2016, is evident from a summary of the above Circulars. The shift though was not caused by any substantive change in the underlying law but facts. From 2015 onwards, the teachers were to be paid salaries in their individual accounts via ECS, while previously the grant-in-aid from the State Government was credited as a lumpsum amount to the account of the societies itself. Prior to 2015, no withholding tax was deducted, primarily because that was the interpretation of the 1977 Circular. However, in 2015, before crediting the salaries to individual accounts of teachers, the Pay and Accounts Officer addressed a communication to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Chennai) as to whether tax is to be deducted from salaries of teachers and received a reply in the affirmative, which the societies alleged was contrary to the Circulars issued until then. Nonetheless, it triggered a chain of events which culminated into CBDT Instructions of 2016 which also affirmed that tax should be deducted and thereafter societies filed writ petitions before the Madras and the Kerala High Court challenging the orders of deduction of tax. 

Diversion of Income vis-a-vis Application of Income 

The Revenue’s stance that religious beliefs do not exempt from withholding tax obligations highlighted the apolitical character of IT Act, 1961. And the Division Bench of the Madras High Court agreed with this argument and premised its interpretation of provisions relating to withholding tax partly on that assumption. (paras 29-30) In my view though, the Revenue’s case hinges on the core issue that the salary of teachers which they are bound to make over to the societies is an application of the teacher’s income and not a diversion of income. The petitioners contended otherwise: that the societies had an overriding title on the teacher’s salaries due to their vow of poverty and making over the salaries amounts to diversion of income and not application of income. 

Application of income, under direct tax law, means a person applies the income or spends it on an avenue of his choosing ‘after’ its receipt. This could mean donation of the entire income to another person, transferring a part or entirety of the income to a dependent based on a previous promise or otherwise parting with the income after receiving it. In such cases, since the income is received by the person and is accrued in their favor, it is taxable in the person’s hands. The subsequent application of income for charitable or other purposes is immaterial to chargeability of income in the hands of the person who receives the income in the first place.  

Diversion of income, fully expressed as ‘diversion of income by an overriding title at source’, implies that the person has diverted their income, by a contractual arrangement or otherwise, to another person and never receives the income. It is important that not only does the person not receive the income, but more crucially the accrual does not happen in favor of the person who diverts their income. Diversion of income can happen in various ways. If a person, as part of an employment or professional contract, dedicates a portion of his income to a charity whereby a charity has a right to receive such money every month, it can be said that the person has diverted that portion of their income and created a charge in favor of the charity. The portion of money earmarked for charity neither accrues in the person’s favor nor does it receive that income. The diversion needs to happen at the source of income to create an overriding title in favor of the other person. But, if the contractual terms are such that the entire income accrues in favor of the person and thereafter a portion of income is diverted towards charity, it will not amount to diversion of income but application of income. 

Courts in India have tried to demarcate the two concepts through various decisions. And while an articulation of the concepts is coherent, their application to various fact situations remains a challenge. Courts have, for example, observed that diversion of income happens where third person becomes entitled to receive the amount before an assessee can lay claim to receive it as its income, but no diversion of income happens when it is passed to a third person after receipt of income even if it may be passed in discharge of an obligation. These broad dictums while understandable need to be applied to situations that are rarely straightforward such as the current case involving nuns and fathers who have taken a vow of poverty.     

Have Teachers Diverted Their Income?  

Based on the above summary exposition of application and diversion of income, it is apposite to examine if the teachers who have taken a vow of poverty diverted their income or were they recipients of income which they applied in favor the societies. From a Canon law perspective since the teachers had suffered a civil death and were no longer capable of owning property, the case is that of diversion of income. And the teachers should not be taxable. And as the petitioners argued, the teachers were merely conduits, and the income was that of the societies. But such an approach tends to completely discount or at least dilutes relevance of the provisions under IT Act, 1961. 

The Division Bench of Madras High Court and the Single Judge Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court disagreed with the above line of argument and gave the IT Act, 1961 more primacy. Both the Courts in their respective judgements observed that the societies did not have a legal right to receive the salaries as they accrued to individual teachers. While the precepts of canon law might require the teachers to part with their salaries, it was held that the said obligation was in the realm of personal law and did not entitle the societies to receive salaries from the State Government. It can be said that from the State Government and Revenue’s standpoint, only teachers were entitled to receive the salaries, but from the standpoint of societies teachers were mere conduits to receive the money and the right to receive the money was of societies. The latter view, of course, is based primarily if not entirely on personal law.  

The single judge bench of the Madras High Court – against which a writ appeal was decided by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court – however, said the above conclusion did not give ‘due regard to personal law’ and the Revenue Department cannot ignore the personal law of the teachers. And by applying the test of distinction between diversion and application of income enunciated by Courts in previous decisions, Single Judge of the Madras High Court held that the correct conclusion is that the teachers only receive the salary on behalf of their societies as they do not partake in any part of their income. And no tax should be deducted at the time of disbursal of their salaries.      

The question then is to what extent, if at all, should income tax accommodate the religious beliefs of the teachers? If the religious belief is to be accommodated, the teachers would have to be considered as fictitious persons – and also in accordance with the long-standing practice of the Income Tax Department as per its pre-2016 Circulars – and only societies would be considered recipients of income via a deeming fiction. This would save the teachers – who do not receive any benefits of portion of their income in reality – from income tax obligations of filing returns and claiming refunds, etc. If the societies are accounting in their income tax returns, it should not be a problem as it has not been since 1944. 

What is the case for not accommodating the religious beliefs? One, there is no express provision in IT Act, 1961 that exempts people from withholding tax obligations on the ground of their religious beliefs. At the same time, I would suggest that accrual, which is one crucial basis to determine chargeability of income, may be a more pertinent lens to view this issue. For example, if the salary accrues to the teachers – due to their services provided on basis of their qualifications, as argued by the Income Tax Department – then it can be said that IT Act, 1961 and its withholding tax obligations applies to them, and the teachers are merely applying their income by making it over to the societies under their personal vows. In the alternative, if the accrual happens in favor of societies, then it is a clear case of diversion of income. But can personal religious vows transfer titles in property? Doubtful. Though if the societies can argue – and I’m not sure they have – that the teachers are bound to transfer salaries to them not just because of their personal vows but also under their contractual obligations with the school/societies, there may be room to suggest that diversion of income happens under contractual terms as well, creating an escape from withholding tax obligations. 

Story of CBDT Circulars 

Apart from the above, a sister issue is that of the validity, content, and scope of Circulars. The Income Tax Department has contended before the Courts that the Circulars that were issued under the IT Act, 1922 and do not represent the legal position under IT Act, 1961. Further, it has been argued the Circulars issued before 2016, only clarify the legal position as regards the fees received by teachers in a fiduciary capacity and not the salaries and pensions. For example, while the Circular of 1977 mentions salaries, the operative part of the Circular only refers to fees. The Division Bench of Madras High Court has opined that the Circulars suffer from vagueness, do not refer to the contemporary position such as the requirement of crediting salaries of teachers in their individual bank accounts such via ECS. Further, the Madras High Court in the same judgment has held that the Circulars can only act as a guide to interpretation and are not binding on Courts. And more importantly, the CBDT does not have the power to grant exemptions when the statutory provisions do not permit such exemptions.  

The Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court opined that the Principal Commissioner of Chennai could not have issued directions to deduct tax by ignoring the previous valid Circulars. But, the Revenue has a persuasive argument in stating that pre-2016 Circulars only refer to fees and not salaries and pensions. The Single Judge of the Madras High Court questioned the validity of 2016 Instructions on the ground it covered the same subject matter as the previous Circulars. While the Division Bench held that the pre-2016 Circulars did not apply to salaries, but only fees. This, again, is a matter of interpretation. A perusal of the Circulars does suggest that the pre-2016 Circulars clarify tax obligations on fee and refer to salaries incidentally. Even if fee is interpreted to encompass salaries, the more crucial fact in my view is that the manner of crediting salaries has changed. Post-2015, teachers are supposed to be paid salaries via ECS in their individual accounts undeniably making them recipients of the income. This fact was not considered in pre-2015 Circulars necessitating issuance of new directions in 2016. Change in facts can change the interpretation of law. I doubt there is much grouse in that argument.  

Conclusion

I think the ‘correct’ answer in this case depends on various parameters and what is accorded due importance. The Single Judge of the Madras High Court invoked Fundamental Rights relating to religion under Article 25 and 26 to support his conclusion in favor of the teachers, while the Division Bench dismissed their relevance to the issue. Similarly, as highlighted above, if personal law is given primary consideration, then the conclusion favors the teachers, while if a strict interpretation of the withholding tax provisions is followed then as the Division Bench of the Madras High Court observed, there is no exemption based on personal religious beliefs. In my view, a deeper look into accrual and by extension diversion and application of income may provide us an insight as to how to satisfactorily resolve this issue. The Single Judge of Kerala High Court, for example, based its conclusion by reasoning that the salary accrued to the teachers who provided service in their individual capacity and not to the societies. The right to receive income is that of the teachers who entrust their salaries to the societies under a personal vow. (para 16) And, this is a fair conclusion and understanding of the arrangement. In fact, this is what the first Circular of 1940 also infers, but in the context of fees. Last, it is worthwhile to underline that the validity of Circulars and Instructions and the interpretation placed on them may ultimately prove to be crucial in determining the fate of this case.       

Whose Money is it? Madras HC Says Deposit of Cash Amounts to Payment of GST

by

The Madras High Court, in a recent decision, observed that the money in Electronic Cash Ledger (‘ECL’) of the taxpayer belongs to the exchequer since the money was deposited in the name of the exchequer in the form of GST. The High Court held that it cannot be said that the Government can only utilize the money in the ECL only when the taxpayer files the monthly return, i.e., GSTR-3B. The High Court reasoned that the taxpayer cannot keep the money in ECL forever and deprive the exchequer the right to utilize the amount deposited in the Government’s account on the pretext of non-filing of GSTR-3B. The High Court’s decision is at variance with the Jharkhand High Court’s decision where it was held that mere deposit of amount in the ECL does not amount to payment of tax to the exchequer and a taxpayer discharges tax liability only on filing of GSTR-3B. 

Facts 

On the date of introduction of GST, i.e., 01.07.2017, the petitioner had Rs 33 crores (rounded off) in balance as CENVAT credit which could not be transitioned to GST regime due to technical difficulties faced by the petitioner in filing TRAN-1. Since the credit was not transitioned and reflected as ITC, the petitioner could not file GSTR-3B for July 2017 within the due date. The inability to file GSTR-3B for July 2017 disentitled the petitioner from filing GSTR-3B for August to December 2017 due to the bar under Section 39(10). Accordingly, the petitioner discharged the GST liability for the period of July 2017 to December 2017 by depositing amounts in the Electronic Cash Ledger and Electronic Credit Ledger under appropriate heads of CGST, SGST, IGST into the government account. Once the petitioner was able to file TRAN-1, the GST portal allowed it to file GSTR-3B for July 2017 to December 2017 which it did on 24.01.2018. 

The petitioner was served with a recovery notice on 16.05.2023 demanding payment of interest of Rs 24 crores (rounded off) for belated filing of returns for the period of July 2017 to December 2017. The petitioner’s representation against the recovery was rejected by the Department and the validity of recovery proceedings formed the subject of the writ petition before the Madras High Court. 

The issue, simply put, was whether the petitioner was liable to pay interest on the amount it regularly – and before due date – deposited in the ECL, but in respect of which GSTR-3B was filed belatedly. 

Arguments 

The petitioner’s argument was that the deposit of cash in ECL is tantamount to deposit of money with the Government since that deposit is made into the Government’s treasury account maintained with the RBI. The petitioner relied on Section 49(1) and Explanation (a) to Section 49 of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 49(1) states that: 

Every deposit made towards tax, interest, penalty, fee or any other amount by a person by internet banking or by using credit or debit cards or National Electronic Fund Transfer or Real Time Gross Settlement or by such other mode and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, shall be credited to the electronic cash ledger of such person to be maintained in such manner as may be prescribed. 

And Explanation (a) to Section 49 states that ‘the date of credit to the account of the Government in the authorized bank shall be deemed to be the date of deposit in the electronic cash ledger.’ 

Based on the above two provisions, the petitioner argued that once money is deposited in ECL, it cannot be withdrawn by the taxpayer at their sweet will since it is money deposited in the Government account maintained with RBI. And a refund from ECL can only happen under Section 54 and, at the same time, if the Department wishes to recover any amount from a taxpayer they can do it via a journal entry for appropriation of amount against the pending tax demand. The petitioner added that merely because debit of ECL is a mere journal entry does not take away from the fact that tax is paid to the Government at the time of remittance under Section 49(1). And since they had deposited amount in ECL on time which amounts to payment of tax, there was no case to levy an interest on them under Section 50, CGST Act, 2017. 

The Department, on the other hand, argued that ‘cash’ which is paid vide a challan is a deposit into the petitioner’s own ECL and is not tax paid to the Government unless the said amount is debited by filing GSTR-3B returns. The Department relied on Section 49(3) which states that the amount available in ECL can be used towards making any payment towards tax, fee or interest and that tax under different heads, i.e., CGST, SGST, IGST is paid only on filing GSTR-3B and debiting the amount from ECL. It is only when GSTR-3B is filed that the tax liability is discharged. 

As is evident, the fulcrum of arguments was whether deposit of cash in the Govt’s account and subsequent credit in ECL amounts to payment of tax or whether debit from ECL at the time of filing of GSTR-3B amounts to payment of tax.  

Madras High Court Favored the Petitioner 

The Madras High Court favored the petitioner by interpreting Section 39, Section 49, and Explanation (a) to Section 49 and to support its interpretation the High Court also relied on the challan used to deposit cash and the format of GSTR-3B. 

Section 39(1) states that:

Every registered person, other than an Input Service Distributor or a non-resident taxable person or a person paying tax under the provisions of section 10 or section 51 or section 52 shall, for every calendar month or part thereof, furnish, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, a return, electronically, of inward and outward supplies of goods or services or both, input tax credit availed, tax payable, tax paid and such other particulars, in such form and manner, and within such time, as may be prescribed, on or before the twentieth day of the month succeeding such calendar month or part thereof. 

The Madras High Court emphasised on the phrase ‘tax paid’ and noted that Section 39 makes it clear that in GSTR-3B the detail of tax paid has to be furnished which is paid via GST PMT-06 challan. And since the challan mentions RBI as the beneficiary bank, any amount deposited vide the challan goes to RBI under the name of GST where the Government maintains an account. The High Court then examined the columns and details provided in GSTR-3B which contain a column of tax paid in cash. And thereby concluded that it was necessary that tax should have been paid via GST PMT-06 ‘prior’ to filing of GSTR-3B since there is a column in GSTR-3B which requires furnishing the details of tax paid in cash. 

The Madras High Court then cited Section 39(7) which states as follows:

Every registered person, who is required to furnish a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (5), shall pay to the Government the tax due as per such return not later than the last date on which he is required to furnish such return.” 

The Madras High Court’s interpretation was novel and vital to the case. As per the High Court, Section 39(7) requires that the tax be paid before the due date of filing monthly return – GSTR-3B – and that filing of the monthly return is not important, but that tax should be paid before the due date of filing of monthly return. (paras 24-26) The High Court thus decoupled the payment of tax with filing of GSTR-3B and derived this conclusion from the manner in which Section 39(7) is phrased. 

The Madras High Court subsequently interpreted Section 49(1) and Explanation (a) to mean that the date on which account of the Government is credited is deemed to be the date of deposit in the ECL. The High Court noted that this implies that at the first step the Government’s account is credited and then the taxpayers’ ECL. And that latter was merely a journal entry or an accounting entry.   

The Madras High Court’s combined reading of Section 39(1), 39(7), 49(1) and Explanation (a) led it to the conclusion that the payment of tax must be made before the filing of GSTR-3B and the payment is made in the Government’s authorized account maintained with RBI. This inevitably led the High Court to the conclusion that GST is paid when money is deposited in the Government’s account and not when GSTR-3B is filed. The High Court further reinforced its interpretation by reasoning that if one were to hold that the Government cannot utilize GST collection until the taxpayer files GSTR-3B then the taxpayer can retain the amount in ECL forever by delaying filing of returns. Thus, the High Court reasoned that the moment money is deposited by generating the challan GST PMT-06, it is the money of the exchequer. The amount deposited is GST collected by a taxpayer on behalf of the Government and the Government’s right to utilize it cannot be postponed until the taxpayer files GSTR-3B. (paras 35-41)     

Jharkhand High Court Favored the Department 

On a similar issue, the Jharkhand High Court in M/s RSB Transmissions case, referred to the same provisions, but interpreted them differently to conclude that tax is paid at the time of filing of GSTR-3B and not when cash is deposited in ECL. The Jharkhand High Court referred to the deposit of money vide a challan, Explanation (a) to Section 49 and noted that the deposit of cash was a deposit in the ECL of the taxpayer and did not amount to discharge of tax liability. While, as per the Madras High Court, the money deposited vide a challan is deposited into the Government’s account maintained in RBI and thereafter shown in ECL via a journal entry. 

The Jharkhand High Court also differed in its interpretation of Section 39(7) by observing that no tax can be paid before filing of GSTR-3B. The Jharkhand High Court noted that it is only on filing of GSTR-3B that the ECL is debited towards payment of tax, interest or penalty. The High Court emphasised on the term ‘deposit’ used in Section 49(1) and 49(3) which states that the amount available in ECL ‘may be’ used for payment towards any tax, interest, interest, penalty or fees. The Jharkhand High Court viewed the ECL as an ‘e-wallet’ where the taxpayer can deposit cash anytime by generating the requisite challans. And refund of the said cash can be obtained under the procedure prescribed under the Act. (para 15)   

Importance of Proviso to Section 50 

Section 50(1) and the Proviso also received differing interpretations from the Madras High Court and the Jharkhand High Court primarily because the way the former interpreted Section 39(7). 

Section 50(1) states that: 

Every person who is liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, but fails to pay the tax or any part thereof to the Government within the period prescribed, shall for the period for which the tax or any part thereof remains unpaid, pay, on his own, interest at such rate, not exceeding eighteen per cent., as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council. (emphasis added)  

The Madras High Court interpreted the term prescribed period in reference to Section 39(7) cited above and held that Section 39(7) provides that tax should be paid before due date of filing monthly return, i.e., GSTR-3B. And, the said tax, as the Madras High Court had noted is deposited vide a challan. This fact becomes crucial in interpreting the Proviso to Section 50(1) which states: 

Provided that the interest on tax payable in respect of supplies made during a tax period and declared in the return for the said period furnished after the due date in accordance with the provisions of section 39, except where such return is furnished after commencement of any proceedings under section 73 or section 74 in respect of the said period, shall be levied on that portion of the tax that is paid by debiting the electronic cash ledger.  (emphasis added)

The Jharkhand High Court had relied on the latter part of Proviso to conclude that tax is actually paid when the ECL is debited. The Jharkhand High Court had observed: 

This again goes to show that only on filing of GSTR-3B return, the debit of the tax dues is made from Electronic Cash Ledger and any amount lying in deposit in the Electronic Cash Ledger prior to that date does not amount to discharge of tax liability. A combined reading of Section 39 (7), 49 (1) and Section 50(1) read with its proviso and Rule 61(2) also confirms this position. (para 15)

The Madras High Court expressed its disagreement with the above interpretation and noted that Section 50(1) read with Section 39(7) provides for payment of tax via cash and its Proviso cannot be interpreted to mean that tax is paid only on debit of ECL. The Madras High Court noted that the Jharkhand High Court’s interpretation of the Proviso is contrary to Section 50(1) which is not permissible since a Proviso does not travel beyond the main provision, only carves out an exception to it. (paras 55 and 58)

The Jharkhand High Court’s interpretation of Proviso to Section 50 flowed from its interpretation of Section 39(7) and since the Madras High Court interpreted Section 39(7) differently, its interpretation of Proviso to Section 50 differed accordingly. Though, the latter seems more aligned with the bare text of the provisions. 

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s conclusion was premised on its understanding that deposit of cash vide challan is a deposit in the Government’s account which it can utilize immediately. The Madras High Court viewed GSTR-3B as the ‘ultimate proof’ for discharge of tax liability of the taxpayer, a return that quantifies and formalizes the tax payment made earlier. (para 38) The Jharkhand High Court viewed the deposit vide challan as a deposit in the e-wallet of the taxpayer. (para 15) The Jharkhand High Court did not pay attention to the first few words of Explanation (a) to Section 49(1) which state ‘the date of credit to the account of the Government …’. The import of these words, in my view, is that the cash is deposited in the account of the Government and by the deeming fiction the date of deposit is treated to be the date of deposit in ECL of the taxpayer. The cash deposit happens in the Government’s account which is merely reflected in the ECL later. And via a journal entry caused by GSTR-3B, the remainder amount, if any, is shown in ECL which can be refunded to the taxpayer. The Jharkhand High Court was also remiss in not paying adequate attention to the phrase ‘tax paid’ used in Section 39(1) and which the Madras High Court corrected, to some extent.   What then is the purpose of GSTR-3B? In my view, the Madras High Court is correct in observing that tax liability is quantified on filing of GSTR-3B even though the tax is deposited before the filing of GSTR-3B. This is because, as the petitioners argued before the Madras High Court, a taxpayer cannot simply withdraw money from ECL unless the prescribed procedure is followed. And a proper officer would not ordinarily allow withdrawal from ECL if there is outstanding tax liability. The cash so deposited, is de facto in the Government’s control. To conclude, it suffices to say that the Jharkhand High Court erred in stating that tax cannot be paid before filing of GSTR-3B while the Madras High Court has accorded less than deserved importance to GSTR-3B, though it does not detract from the fact that the latter’s view reflects a more accurate reading of the law. 

Section 194N of IT Act, 1961 is Constitutional: Madras HC

by

The Madras High Court recently[1] upheld constitutionality of Section 194N of the IT Act, 1961. Section 194N inserted via Finance Act, 2019 was argued by the petitioners to be unconstitutional on the grounds of it being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of their fundamental rights under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Section 194N imposes an obligation on the banks including co-operative societies carrying on banking – when paying any sum exceeding one crore rupees, increased to three crores in 2023 – to withhold a tax of 2% of the amount. The petitioner’s main argument that the amount withdrawn by co-operative societies was not income was rejected by the Madras High Court. 

Facts and Arguments 

The petitioner, a licensed bank, maintained accounts of co-operative societies. All the account holders were registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1963. When loans were sought by members of the societies, petitioner used to grant a loan via banking channels to the members. If a member did not have a bank account, the petitioner used to transfer the money to current account of the society for onward disbursement to the farmers. The societies would withdraw the cash and disburse it to the farmers. The petitioner stated that it was used a conduit between the State on one hand and societies on the other to transfer various kinds of cash support to farmers including crop loans and other gifts. 

The main argument of the petitioner was that the withdrawal of money by the co-operative society was intended to be forwarded to the farmers. And that the money did not constitute income of the society. And neither was the money income in the hands of recipients since they were gifts or monetary assistance provided by the State. When the petitioner was issued a showcause notice for non-compliance with Section 194N, it replied that the provision is arbitrary and withdrawal of cash cannot be regulated in a manner proposed under Section 194N. The petitioner argued that the tax withholding provisions under Chapter XVIIB were intended to be applicable only to receipts which constituted income in the hands of the recipient. The petitioner assailed the provision as being unreasonable and that its stated aim of promoting digital payments was immaterial in determining the reasonableness of the provision. 

Curiously, the petitioner also argued that a new charge was created via Section 194N and equated Section 194N to a charging provision, questioned its placement under the Chapter XVIIB of the IT Act, 1961 and termed it ‘eccentric’. (para 19)

The State, on the other hand, emphasised the objective of the provision, i.e., to promote digital payments. The State underlined its aim of creating an economy that was robust and cashless, as far as possible. And that the cash withdrawals in the co-operative banks were fraught with irregularities that led to a large portion of income escaping the tax net. (paras 31-36)      

Decision  

The Madras High Court did not engage with the petitioner’s main argument in a straightforward manner. It instead cited precedents to observe that the use of the word ‘sum’ instead of ‘income’ in Section 194N does not advance the petitioner’s case that the rigours of the provision would only apply if receipt constitutes taxable income in the hands of the recipient. The High Court referred to various provisions relating to withholding tax in Chapter XVII and the varied terminology used in them such as sum, amount, income and noted that the used of the terminology is not conclusive to establish if tax needs to be deducted at source. In fact, the High Court placed greater emphasis on the intent and objective and noted that the intent of the provision is equally crucial to interpret the terms used in the provision. (paras 39-51)     

Next, the Madras High Court relied on some relevant precedents to negate petitioner’s argument that Section 194N was a charging provision. The High Court held that the impugned provision was clearly a machinery provision. The High Court further observed that the objective of preventing cash withdrawals from escaping tax net and promoting a digital economy were intended to be achieved through Section 194N and the legality of the provision cannot be argued to be fatal based on its placement under the IT Act, 1961. 

Further, the Madras High Court relied on facts to reject the petitioner’s other argument, i.e., cash withdrawal was not income for the society. The High Court observed that there is nothing on record to show the entirety of the amount is further disbursed to the recipients of State’s cash assistance and other income support schemes. The High Court noted that one of petitioner’s argument was that the gifts were not taxable in the hands of the intended beneficiaries, and thus there was no need to deduct tax at source. But the High Court observed, the bank was not aware of the purpose at the time of withdrawal and that in many instances the withdrawal amount was more than the intended gift amounts for the beneficiaries.  

Another provision, that the High Court referred to was Section 197, IT Act, 1961 which allows a payee to obtain a nil certificate on the ground that the receipt is not amenable to tax. Section 197 did not include situations incorporated in Section 194N, meaning that the petitioner could not the option provided to other payees under Section 197. (paras 73-75) While the petitioner did not have the remedy under Section 197, it could invoke Section 194N itself wherein the Central Government in consultation with RBI is empowered to issue a Notification enlisting the recipients to whom rigour of Section 194N would not apply. The High Court noted that since such a Notification has already been issued in favor of certain recipients, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Central Govt seeking an exemption rather than make a claim that the receipts in the form of cash withdrawals from banks are not taxable. The High Court was indirectly hinting that the petitioner did not make a wise decision to not comply with its statutory obligations provided in Section 194N. (paras 77-78)   

Decision 

The impugned decision stands on defensible if not impeccable reasoning. The High Court sufficiently emphasised the intent for introduction of Section 194N and noted that machinery provisions can be introduced to meet social objectives such as expansion of tax base and introduce transparency in the fiscal economy. The High Court referred to legislative intent to highlight that machinery provisions while not charging provisions can mandate deduction of tax on withdrawal of money even if the money is not income in the hands of the recipient. But, the High Court was unable to provide a clear and articulate reasoning as to why legislative intent should override every other consideration while interpreting a statutory provision. 

[1] The Income Tax Officer, Tiruchirappalli v M/s. The Thanjavur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd TS-821-HC-2023MAD.  

Madras HC Holds Prescribed Time Period for Filing Returns as ‘Directory’: Interprets Section 62, CGST Act

by

In a recent decision[1], the Madras High Court had to decide if an assessee loses the right to file tax returns after expiry of 30 days under Section 62(2), CGST Act, 2017. Section 62(2) provides an assessee 30 days to file returns after the proper officer passes a ‘best judgment’ assessment order. The High Court held that the assessee does not lose its right to file returns, but its interpretation of the provision is not founded on cogent reasoning. 

Facts 

In the impugned case, the asssessee failed to file its tax returns for the months of December 2022, January 2023 and February 2023. Thus, in exercise of the powers under Section 62(1), the proper officer passed best judgment assessment orders on 28.03.2023 for the month of December 2022 and on 30.04.2023 for the months of January 2023 and February 2023. Under Section 62(2), the assessee can file a valid return within 30 days of the service of best judgment assessment order passed by a proper officer under Section 62(1). And if the return is filed, the best judgment assessment order is deemed to have been withdrawn but the assessee’s liability for payment of fine and penalty continues. 

In the impugned case, the assessee did not file its return within 30 days of the passing of the best judgment assessment order and pleaded that the delay be condoned on account of financial difficulties. The Madras High Court framed the issue as: whether the assessee loses the right to file returns after expiry of 30 days or is right retained by providing sufficient reasons for non-filing of returns. (para 13) 

Decision 

The Madras High Court examined the relevant provision, i.e., Section 62, CGST Act, 2017 and stated that under Section 62(1) the proper officer has been granted a period of 5 years for completing the best judgment assessment. The 5 years are calculated from the due date of filing of annual return of the relevant financial year. Thus, the High Court deduced that in the impugned case, the proper officer could finalise the best judgment assessment order until 31.12.2029. And thereafter elaborated:

In such case, if the best judgement assessment order is passed by the respondent on 31.12.2029, which is permissible under Section 74 of the GST Act, the petitioner can file his returns within a period of 30 days therefrom i.e., on or before 30.01.2030. Hence, the time limit is available up to 30.01.2030 for the petitioner to file their returns. (para 14) 

The above paragraph is a peculiar reading of Section 62. Under Section 62(1), the proper officer has an outer time limit of 5 years to finalise the best judgment assessment order. This does not automatically extend the right of an assessee to file their tax returns to 5 years and 30 days. The assessee, under Section 62(2), must file a valid tax return within 30 days of passing of the best judgment assessment. Only because in the impugned case the proper officer finalized the best judgment assessment much before expiry of 5 years does not mean that the right of assessee extends to 5 years and 30 days. If the right of an assessee is interpreted to survive for 5 years and 30 days in all cases, then prompt passing of best judgment assessment orders would negate the 30 day outer limit as assessee can file valid returns anytime within 5 years and 30 days. The intent of the provision seems to be to allot the proper officer a window of 5 years to pass an order and the assessee 30 days once the order has been passed.    

The other issue, about condonation of delay was where the Madras High Court’s observations were on sounder footing. The High Court observed that if there is a sufficient reason for not filing returns within 30 days then the delay can be condoned. But, this does not lead to the High Court’s conclusion that ‘the limitation of 30 days period prescribed under Section 62(2) of the Act appears to be directory in nature’. (para 16) Here again, interpreting the 30-day time period allotted to the assessee as directory in nature is an opinion manufactured by the High Court without any cogent reasoning or a detailed analysis of the intent of the provision. 

Conclusion 

The Madras High Court’s conclusion that if there is delay on assessee’s part, i.e., beyond 30 days, then the delay can be condoned if sufficient reasons are presented is appreciable. However, the interpretation that the period of 30 days is only directory in nature and right of the assesse to file valid returns extends beyond 5 years lacks teeth. The High Court was remiss in not noticing that the period of 5 years was for the proper officer and not the assessee. The latter only has 30 days which commence from the service of the assessment order.    

[1] Comfort Shoes Components v Assistant Commissioner, Ambur, Vellore TS-694-HCMAD-2023-GST. 

LinkedIn