Supreme Court

‘Simple and Non-Controversial’: Section 13A, IT Act, 1961

by

Section 13A was introduced in the IT Act, 1961 via the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1978 (‘1978 Act’) to grant income tax exemption to political parties. The then Minister of Finance, Shri H.M. Patel, introduced Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 1978 in the Lok Sabha and remarked that it was ‘a simple and non-controversial bill’ and he trusted that it would receive unanimous support of all the parties. The 1978 Act was solely dedicated to clarifying income tax obligations of political parties and did not contain provisions on any other subject. The Lok Sabha debate that followed reflected anything but a unanimous view, and the provision, as some recent developments suggest, are no longer non-controversial. This article – relying on Lok Sabha debate on Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 1978 – aims to examine the rationale for Section 13A, IT Act, 1961 with an aim to provide an informed context to income tax obligations of political parties. To begin with, it is pertinent to provide a brief summary of the scope of Section 13A.    

Reasons for Income Tax Exemption to Political Parties 

When Shri H.M. Patel introduced the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 1978 in the Lok Sabha, he provided several reasons for introduction the exemption. He reasoned that political parties are central in a democratic setup and that they spend a considerable amount of money in carrying out their political activities. Thereby if income of political parties is subjected to income tax it would reduce their disposable funds hampering their capacity to carry out their legitimate activities from their legitimate sources of income. Thereby, Shri H.M. Patel reasoned it was necessary to exempt income of political parties derived from any of their investments in movable and immovable assets.

There are two noticeable aspects in the reasons articulated by Shri H.M. Patel: first, the attempt to place political parties at the epicentre of democracy; second, the emphasis on legitimate activities and legitimate sources of income. The former is debatable to some extent, but I will focus on the latter. The latter was clearly suggestive of the fact that not just excess, even some taxation on income of political parties results in them using illegitimate funding. This argument, of course, is as old as tax law and can be used by anyone. But, typically the argument is framed on the foundation of excess taxation, i.e., excessive tax/high tax rates incentivizes taxpayers to indulge in tax evasion and accumulation of unaccounted money. While in the context of Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 1978, the suggestion seemed to be that taxation per se reduces space for political parties to indulge in legitimate activities from legitimate sources. The Minister never argued that taxation rates were an issue, he simply stated that levying tax on political parties hampered their activities. And there was no vociferous or principled opposition to the tax exemption, except by a handful of members who alleged that the party in power was trying to benefit from the tax exemption. 

Income from Souvenirs 

A substantial part of the Lok Sabha debate touched on Section 37(2B), IT Act, 1961 which was added to disallow expenditure of companies on advertisements purchased in souvenirs published by political parties. To understand the importance of souvenirs as a source of income in 1978, it is important to remember that donations by companies to political parties was banned at that time. (Imagine that happening today!) Instead, companies used to purchase advertisement space in souvenirs published by political parties to contribute to income of political parties. Shri H.M. Patel argued that the companies were not purchasing these advertisements on commercial considerations but to circumvent the ban on company donations. Also, to claim deductions on their profits. He reasoned that to plug this loophole, Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 1978 proposes that expenses of companies towards advertisements in souvenirs shall not be eligible for deduction. Various members considered this provision as a half-baked attempt to plug the loophole, and instead advocated for a complete ban on advertisements by companies in souvenirs of political parties. A complete ban on advertisements would have halted a lucractive source of money for political parties and unsurprisingly the provision was not amended and only restricted companies from claiming deductions on advertisement expenses.  

I’m unsure how much souvenirs contribute towards income of political parties presently, though the provision relating to disallowance of souvenirs remains on the book. However, as has been pointed elsewhere the innovative use of coupons helps political parties earn income without necessarily showing it on their books of account. Coupons are issued by political parties in return for donations and can also be issued for small amounts of five or ten rupees. In the absence of any upper cap on coupons or regulatory guidelines on issuance of coupons, they are a known, but not well-documented avenue for political parties to channelize unaccounted money. 

Scope of Section 13A

So, what is the scope of Section 13A and does it offer complete tax exemption to political parties. Let me summarise its scope. 

Section 13A, in its current form exempts any income of a political party which is chargeable under the head ‘Income from house property’ or ‘Income from other sources’ or ‘Capital gains’ or any income by way of voluntary contributions received by a political party from any person. Originally, the provision exempted ‘income from securities’ as well, but it was deleted in 1988, and ‘capital gains’ was added in 2003, perhaps in accordance with the changing sources of income of a political party.

Section 13A prescribes certain conditions for a political party to successfully claim the income tax exemption under IT Act, 1961. Some of the conditions are: first, the political party keeps and maintains such books of account and other documents as would enable an assessing officer to properly deduce its income; second, in respect of such voluntary contribution in excess of twenty thousand rupees, such political party keeps and maintains record of such contribution and the name and address of person who has made such contribution; third, accounts of such political party are audited by an account. 

Section 13A was amended in 2017 to provide that political parties were not required to maintain records of contributions received through electoral bonds and that, no donation exceeding two thousand rupees is received by such political party otherwise than by an account payee cheque, electronic clearing system or through a bank account or electoral bond. The Supreme Court declared these amendments to Section 13A as unconstitutional.

Compared to the compliance obligations that IT Act, 1961 imposes on various taxpayers, the compliance requirements for political parties can be fairly characterized as ‘light touch.’ The electoral bond scheme – while it existed – made the income tax obligations of political parties even more relaxed and effectively placed political parties outside the ambit of IT Act, 1961. However, political parties were not obeying even the minimum mandate that IT Act, 1961 had imposed on them even prior to 2017. 

Willful Ignorance of Section 13A

Common Cause Society case perhaps best documents the abuse of Section 13A, and laxity of the Income Tax Department towards political parties. The petitioners, Common Cause Society, brought to the Supreme Court’s notice that various political parties were guilty of not fulfilling the statutory conditions prescribed under Section 13A, IT Act, 1961 and yet seemed to enjoy tax exempt status on their income. And that the Income Tax Department was dragging its feet and not ensuring that the political parties comply with their obligations under IT Act, 1961. Some of the political parties that were accused of not filing their income tax returns as per the law were: Bharatiya Janta Party, Indian National Congress, All India Forward Bloc, Janta Party, Revolution Socialist Party among others. 

The Supreme Court held that various political parties have for several years violated the statutory provisions, and the Income Tax authorities ‘have been wholly remiss in the performance of their statutory duties under law.’ The Income Tax Department was directed to take necessary action against the defaulting political parties as per the provisions of IT Act, 1961 and the Ministry of Finance was instructed to conduct an inquiry against the erring officials who did not perform their statutory duties. I’m not privy to the result of these actions as to whether any penalties were imposed on the erring political parties under the IT Act, 1961 or if the erring officers were held responsible for ignoring their statutory duties.       

Conclusion 

Section 13A, IT Act, 1961 was introduced with a particular and narrow objective. While Members of Parliament during the debate correctly highlighted that such the provision favors the political party in power, it does not detract from the fact that all political parties enjoy the income tax exemption and need to satisfy identical conditions to lawfully obtain the exemption. As Common Cause Society case showed us, even the minimal statutory requirements are rarely fulfilled by all political parties. It is this culture of impunity that has afforded an opportunity to the current BJP government to target the Indian National Congress. The timing and aggressive behavior of tax authorities hardly signals a bona fide attempt at enforcing the IT Act, 1961 because history clearly suggests that income tax authorities have ignored contravention of IT Act, 1961 by political parties. At the same time, the Income Tax Department has ample legal cover to argue that Section 13A has not been complied with. Whether similar enthusiasm will be shown in ensuring compliance by political parties in power is yet to be seen.   

Including Capital Gains within Scope of Income: A Short Note from Tax History

by

Provisions to tax capital gains in India’s income tax law were first included in 1947. The Act XII(22) of 1947, amended Income Tax Act, 1922 (‘IT Act, 1922’) – predecessor to India’s current income tax statute, IT Act, 1961 – and expanded the definition of income to include capital gains. The expansion of definition of income was subject of a judicial challenge where the Bombay High Court and thereafter the Supreme Court concluded that the term income can encompass capital gains, though Justice Chagla – then at the Bombay High Court – had a different opinion. The different reasonings offer us a small glimpse of the understanding of the term income seven decades ago, and wider interpretive challenges at the interface of constitutional law and tax law that continue until today. 

Amendment of 1947 

The Act XII (22) of 1947 introduced certain amendments to the IT Act, 1922 to bring capital gains within the net of income tax. A new definition of capital asset was inserted under Section 2(42A) where it was defined as property of any kind held by an assessee whether connected with his business, profession, or vocation. Section 6 was amended to include an additional head of capital gain, and definition of income was expanded include any capital gain chargeable under Section 12B. In turn, Section 12B stated that capital gains shall be payable by an assessee under the head capital gains in respect of any profits or gains arising from sale, transfer or exchange of a capital asset effectuated after 31.03.1946. The Bombay High Court correctly noted that the amendments aimed to levy tax on capital gains earned through sale, transfer or exchange and not on the entire value of the underlying capital asset. Levying tax on the realised gains continues to be the commonly accepted and widely adopted definition of capital gains tax.   

Challenge on Grounds of Legislative Competence

The legislative competence to enact the amendment was the subject of a judicial challenge before the Bombay High Court and thereafter the Supreme Court. The Bombay High Court noted that the central question before it was whether the Union was competent to enact the amendment in view of the provisions of Government of India Act, 1935. The High Court noted the relevant legislative entries in List I of the Seventh Schedule that required interpretation were:

Entry 54, List I stated: ‘Taxes on income other than agricultural income.’ 

Entry 55, List II stated: ‘Taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural land, of individuals and companies; taxes on the capital of companies.’ 

The Bombay High Court, through Justice Chagla and Justice Tendulkar pronounced an interesting judgment wherein both the judges upheld the vires of the amendment but reasoned differently. Justice Chagla, in his opinion, emphasised on the distinction between income and capital and opined that he need not be guided by the reasonable or common interpretation of the term ‘income’, but instead it is important that he relies on legislative practice. He referred to the relevant cases British cases and concluded that ‘capital accretion could never have been looked upon as income by an English lawyer’ and it was not correct to give a connotation to the word income that was foreign to legislative practice. Justice Chagla concluded that taxes on income could not include taxes on capital accretion. 

Justice Tendulkar though opined that relying on legislative practice was only appropriate when the term in question was ambiguous. Also, that income has been held to not include capital accretion only in the context of taxation laws and the cases do not restrict the scope of the term income outside taxation laws. This distinction may seem specious, because in the impugned case, the scope of the term income was also in reference to a tax statute, i.e., IT Act, 1922, even if indirectly. At the same time, it is true that the immediate query was whether income can include capital gains under the legislative entry – Entry 54, List I. Justice Tendulkar accordingly observed that merely because the term income is interpreted narrowly for purposes of income tax law, does not mean it acquires a similar meaning outside taxation law. The term income as used in Entry 54, List I could be interpreted differently as compared to the term income as used in a tax statute. Justice Tendulkar further reasoned that words should be given their natural meaning and concluded that the term income under Entry 54, List I was wide enough to include capital gains AS contemplated under Section 12B, IT Act, 1922. 

While both judges of the Bombay High Court adopted different reasoning in their opinions, both concluded that the provisions inserted in IT Act, 1922 were intra vires the Government of India Act, 1935. The difference was that Justice Chagla’s view was that the amendment was covered by Entry 55, List I while Justice Tendulkar was of the view that Entry 54, List I was wide enough to include the amendment relating to capital gains within its ambit. Justice Tendulkar’s reasoning though left one question unanswered: if capital gains could be included in Entry 54, List I, was Entry 55, List I redundant? The latter specifically included taxation on capital value of assets in its ambit. One could argue though that Entry 55, List I only included taxation on capital value of assets and did not contemplate taxation on capital gains. This interplay of both the legislative entries was not addressed adequately by Justice Tendulkar.     

Supreme Court Interprets Income Liberally  

In appeal against the Bombay High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court expressed its agreement with the view adopted by Justice Tendulkar. The Supreme Court made two crucial observations: first, in citing legislative practice, the Bombay High Court observed that legislative practice deducted by citing the judicial decisions only revealed interpretation of the term income in the context of tax statutes and it does not necessarily narrow the natural and grammatical meaning of the term income; second, the Supreme Court observed that the words used in a legislative entry should be construed liberally and in their widest amplitude. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the impugned amendment was intra vires Entry 54, List I and it was unnecessary to state if the amendment was within the scope of Entry 55. Supreme Court’s judgment which aligned with Justice Tendulkar also suffered from similar limitation of not adequately addressing the interplay of both the entries: Entry 54, List I and Entry 55, List I.    

Capital Gains = Income 

One takeaway from the High Court and Supreme Court decisions is that income wasn’t intuitively understood to comprise capital gains, until as recent as 1947. Taxation on capital gains is such an integral part of our contemporary income tax laws that the notion of capital gains not being included in the scope of income may seem otherworldly to contemporary tax lawyers. Yet the process of expansion of income to include within its scope capital gains wasn’t a straightforward process as evident in the case discussed above. In fact, the only debates since 1947 have been about rationalizing capital gains provisions and not their place in income tax laws per se. While jurisprudence has grown on the distinction between revenue and capital receipts, and arguments that the latter are not taxable unless there is an express charging provision to that effect; the wider place of capital gains under income tax law is never under challenge per se. At least not directly.     

Another aspect that is worth pointing in some detail is the interpretive tools that judges used to determine the meaning of the term income and capital gains. Legislative practice, reasonable interpretation of the term, as well as the notion of liberal interpretation of legislative entries all interlocked to determine the fate of India’s first attempt to include capital gains in the universe of income tax laws. The judges also observed that to hold that the term income has been crystallised would act against any attempt to further enlarge the definition of income, and would imply that no further amendments to the definition of income are possible. Though I doubt that the intent of arguing that income excludes capital gains was to imply that the definition of income is permanent. The argument that capital gains cannot form part of income was based on the understanding of income as a regular or recurring source of monetary benefit while capital gains was understood as a rare or at least a non-regular means of benefitting monetarily and thereby outside the ambit of income.  

State’s Powers to Secure Loans: Kerala-Union Tussle 

by

The State of Kerala (‘Kerala’) recently filed an original suit against the Union of India (‘Union’) alleging that the latter has interfered with its fiscal autonomy by imposing a ceiling limit on its borrowing powers. The issue has been brewing for a while and Kerala has only recently approached the Supreme Court, which is yet to adjudicate on this issue. Kerala’s suit though brings into focus an important but largely ignored provision of the Constitution, i.e., Article 293. This article is an attempt to understand the provision and the related legal issues in the dispute between Kerala and the Union. 

Kerala Alleges Violation of Fiscal Autonomy 

Relevant media reports reveal that Kerala has challenged the Union’s amendment to Section 4, Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003 (‘FRBM’) introduced via Finance Act, 2018. The two relevant amendments made to FRBM in 2018 are: first, amendment of definition of the term ‘general Government debt’ which has been defined to include sum total of debt of Central and State Governments, excluding inter-Governmental liabilities; second, Section 4(1)(b) which inter alia states that the Central Government shall ‘endeavour’ to ensure that the general Government debt does not exceed 60% of GDP by end of the financial year 2024-25. Section 4(1)(b) also states that the Central Government shall endeavour to ensure that the Central Government debt does not exceed 40% of GDP by end of the financial year 2024-25. 

The implication of the above amendments is that State debt is included in the definition of ‘general Government debt’ in FRBM even though it is a central legislation. Also, the desirable upper limit of fiscal deficit of all States is 20% of the GDP. As a result of this amendment, State debt levels are not exclusively within their control under State-level FRBMs, but also under the Union-FRBM.  

Kerala has challenged the above amendment specifically the amended definition of ‘general Government debt’ whereby State debts have been included in the term. Kerala’s argument is that ‘public debt of the State’ is a matter exclusively within the State’s competence under Entry 43, List II of the Seventh Schedule. By introducing a ceiling limit on the State’s borrowing, the Union is infringing the State’s fiscal autonomy. Kerala is arguing that States have fiscal autonomy to borrow money on the security and guarantee of the Consolidated Fund of the State and have exclusive power to regulate their finances through preparation and management of its budget. Union’s interference in the borrowing powers of States is violation of the fiscal federal structure envisaged under the Constitution.   

Mandate of Article 293 

Kerala’s challenge also touches Article 293 of the Constitution. Kerala’s arguments, as reported, are that relying on the 2018 amendments to FRBM, the Union imposed an upper ceiling on its borrowing limits. And that in the guise of exercise of its powers under Article 293(3) and 293(4), the Union is curtailing its fiscal autonomy. Two letters seem to have been issued by the Union informing Kerala that in view of the amendments to FRBM in 2018, it cannot borrow additional sums, while Kerala is arguing that it needs the additional money to finance its welfare schemes and pay its pensioners among apart from meeting other essential expenditure needs.

This brings us to the question of what is the scope and nature of the Union’s power under Article 293? Article 293, with the marginal heading ‘Borrowing by States’ provides that: 

  • Subject to the provisions of this article, the executive power of a State extends to borrowing within the territory of India upon the security of the Consolidated Fund of the State within such limits, if any, as may from time to time be fixed by the Legislature of such State by law and to the giving of guarantees within such limits, if any, as may be so fixed.
  • The Government of India may, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by or under any law made by Parliament, make loans to any State or, so long as any limits fixed under article 292 are not exceeded, give guarantees in respect of loans raised by any State, and any sums required for the purpose of making such loans shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
  • A State may not without the consent of the Government of India raise any loan if there is still outstanding any part of a loan which has been made to the State by the Government of India or by its predecessor Government, or in respect of which a guarantee has been given by the Government of India or by its predecessor Government.
  • A consent under clause (3) may be granted subject to such conditions, if any, as the Government of India may think fit to impose.

Article 293 is not a novel provision and had a comparable predecessor in the Government of India Act, 1935. However, the scope and implications of Article 293 have not been truly tested in a dispute before Courts. Nonetheless, it is important to examine if some of the arguments put forth by Kerala are a reasonable interpretation of the text of Article 293. 

To begin with, Article 293(1) provides complete freedom to the State to borrow money ‘within the territory of India’ and any limits on such powers are imposed by the State legislature by a law. To this end, States, including Kerala, have enacted their own fiscal responsibility statutes – State-level FRBMs – which set targets of the fiscal deficit vis-à-vis the GDP of the State. And in enactment of these laws, Article 293 envisages no role of the Union. 

Article 293(2) empowers the Union to extend loans to any State. Also, the Union can extend guarantees in respect of loans raised by any State, subject to satisfaction of the conditions of Article 292 or any law made by the Parliament. In this respect, Article 292 provides that the executive power of the Union extends to borrowing upon the security of Consolidated Fund of India within such limits as may be prescribed by law. And Section 4(1)(c) of FRBM states that the Central Government shall not give guarantees on any loan on the security of the Consolidated Fund of India in excess of one-half per cent of GDP in that financial year. And there is a Guarantee Policy that elaborates the administrative and other aspects of the Union providing guarantees.  

Articles 293(3) and 293(4) – central to the dispute – provide the Union powers to interfere with the State’s autonomy to raise money. Article 293(3) states that the Union’s consent is a pre-condition for a State to raise any loan if the loan granted to it by the Union is still outstanding or if the loan in respect of which the Union was a guarantor is outstanding. The Union can intervene in a State’s attempt to raise more money via loans, but only in the two circumstances mentioned above. 

Article 293(4), at first glance, seem to offer a wide discretion to the Union as its provides that the Union may grant consent under clause (3) subject by imposing  conditions as it ‘may think fit to impose.’ The conditions, if the Union’s response Kerala petition is any indicator, may include macroeconomic stability/financial stability, credit ratings among other related economic considerations. The Union, of course, is responsible for maintaining a stable economic environment at the national level and the Union imposing conditions on State’s borrowing by invoking macroeconomic stability which in turn is influenced by fiscal deficit limits seems to be reasonable. In the absence of any express caveats in Article 293(4), the outer limits of the Union’s discretion will have to be read into the provision. For example, if the conditions imposed by the Union are not unreasonable or arbitrary, they are likely to be within the scope of Article 293(4). At the same time, it is possible to argue that the conditions while reasonable should have a sufficient nexus with the objective of either maintaining or achieving the fiscal deficit targets provided in FRBM- State and Union level. While the outer limits are relatively easier to articulate in abstract and general terms, the true test is applying them to the facts at hand which is easier said than done.   

Kerala’s other argument that amendment of Section 4 of FRBM whereby State debts have been included in the definition of ‘general Government debt’ is beyond the Union’s legislative competence is persuasive. The persuasiveness is because public debt of a State is clearly listed in Entry 43, List II and in pursuance of that power the States have enacted their own FRBMs. The Union can of course, claim that the encroachment on State’s public debt is incidental and the pith and substance of the Union-level FRBM is to set limits for the Union’s fiscal deficit. Or in the alternative, Union-level FRBM is aimed to preserve macroeconomic stability and any encroachment on State public debt is incidental. The counter argument is that what the Union cannot do directly it cannot do indirectly. In the guise of legislating for macroeconomic stability and providing fiscal deficit targets for the Union’s debts, it cannot set ceiling limits on State’s borrowing powers and encroach State’s legislative power under Entry 43, List II.   

Kerala Finance Minister Interprets Article 293 

In a letter dated 22.07.2022, the then Finance Minister of Kerala wrote a letter to the Union Finance Minister expressing displeasure at the Union’s attempt to regulate financial management of the State. The Finance Minister of Kerala stated that Article 293(3) and (4) were only meant to provide the Union power to protect its interest as a creditor and not grant a general power to the Union to oversee the overall borrowing program of the States. While the letter also highlighted the Union’s questionable methods of calculating its debts such as inclusion of debts of instrumentalities of State Government, i.e., statutory bodies and corporations but excluding the public account of the State, I will keep the focus on the Finance Minister of Kerala’s understanding of Article 293.

In the letter, Finance Minister of Kerala argued that the term ‘any loan’ used in Article 293(3) must be interpreted by applying the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’ and can only mean a loan advanced by the Union to States. And that the requirement of obtaining the Union’s consent under Article 293(3) is only for the purpose of protecting the rights of the Union as a creditor. Thereby, the conditions that the Union can impose under Article 293(4) can only be related to the loan for which it issues consent under Article 293(3). 

Finance Minister of Kerala places a restrictive interpretation on the Union’s powers under Article 293(3) and (4). While the argument that ‘any loan’ under Article 293(3) should be interpreted to mean loans by the Union to States is interesting, in the absence of any definitive external aid to interpret this provision it cannot be termed as a decisive understanding of the phrase. The restrictive and purposive interpretation of Article 293(3) and (4) by the Finance Minister of Kerala also seeks to ensure that the Union can exercise its power to provide consent and impose conditions only to protect its interests as a creditor for the outstanding loans and not to regulate the financial borrowings of the State in general. For the latter is within the legislative competence and by extension executive power of the State in question. The restrictive interpretation will thus maintain the delicate balance of distribution of legislative powers.     

Finance Minister of Kerala also brings into question the legislative competence of the Union to regulate the State’s borrowings. The letter states that the executive power of the Union is co-extensive with its legislative power and since Parliament has no legislative power vis-à-vis Article 293 no executive power can be exercised by the Union under the provision. I think there is another way to look at the legislative and executive powers of the Union vis-à-vis public debt of States: since the Union has no legislative power on public debt of a State, it cannot exercise executive power on the same issue except beyond the confines of Article 293(3) and 293(4). Of course, even in this scenario what is exact scope of Articles 293(3) and 293(4) and the nature and extent of the Union’s powers under these provisions will need to be necessarily determined.  

The Argument of Union’s ‘Superior Financial Powers’

Article 293 and the issue of public debt is fairly novel in Indian Constitutional jurisprudence. In such situations, the broader Constitutional design vis-a-vis taxation and financial matters can help understand the extent of Union’s powers under Article 293. As regards taxation, the more lucrative and buoyant tax sources are with the Union though the States bear relatively more administrative responsibilities. Drawing an analogy from division of taxation powers, one of the Union’s initial arguments before the Supreme Court was that the Union is also vested with greater powers in managing finances given its responsibility of promoting macroeconomic stability. The dangers of adopting this interpretive approach are manifold. First, the term ‘macroeconomic stability’ is malleable and all-encompassing and provides wide leeway to the Union. Second, while the greater taxation powers of the Union are evident from the tax-related legislative entries in the Seventh Schedule and GST-related provisions, the case for the Union possessing greater financial powers rests on a contextual reading of the relevant Constitutional provisions. Greater emphasis needs to given to legislative competence of States over their public debts vis-à-vis the Union’s powers under Article 293(3) and 293(4). As far as possible, the division of financial powers need to be understood and interpreted on their own terms. If the Constitutional design on taxation powers becomes the springboard for interpreting the financial powers in a similar manner, States will have to contend with the Union imposing strict conditions before raising loans and more intrusive scrutiny of their borrowing powers.  

Conclusion 

Kerala has raised important Constitutional and legal questions through its petition and its satisfactory resolution will require, among other things, an adept understanding of the Constitutional design and importance of finances in the Union-State relations. Majority of fiscal federalism discussions in India have centred around the devolution of taxation powers with little to no attention to the borrowing powers. Even though successive Finance Commissions have dealt with the subject they have not opined specifically on the scope and meaning of Article 293. The distribution of financial powers especially relating to borrowings has never been truly discussed in a meaningful manner nor has it been tested before Courts. It is possible that the Union and Kerala may resolve this disagreement outside the Court, but irrespective the latter’s petition presents interesting questions that may throw equally interesting or surprising answers.      

Leg History of Sec 90(4) & 90(5), IT Act, 1961

by

The infographic below is a snapshot of the legislative history of Section 90(4) and 90(5) of IT Act, 1961. It provides a summary view of the Income Tax Department’s attempt to include a stringent condition for a non-resident assessee to claim DTAA benefits. The condition, simply stated, was that a TRC issued by a contracting state is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to claim DTAA benefits. It was supposed to allow the Indian income tax authorities to go behind the TRC issued by another state.

The importance and relevance of the legislative history of the aforesaid provisions can be better understood by reading this and this in the wake of Delhi High Court’s decision involving tax benefits under the India-Singapore DTAA. An appeal against the decision is pending before the Supreme Court at the time of publishing this infographic.

The Din Surrounding ‘DIN’

by

The Supreme Court recently granted an interim stay on the Delhi High Court’s judgment wherein it was held that a communication issued by an income tax authority without citing the computer-generated Document Identification Number (‘DIN’) does not have any standing in law. While the one line stay order of the Supreme Court does not mention the reasons, it is worth examining how the Income Tax Department is trying to circumvent the mandate of a Circular issued by its own apex administrative body, i.e., the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 

Contents of the CBDT Circular

Before I elaborate the legal issue involved, it is apposite to summarise the CBDT’s Circular, its aim and content. The CBDT issued a Circular on 14.08.2019 stating that as part of the broader e-governance initiatives as well as Income Tax Department’s move towards computerisation of work, almost all notices and orders are being generated on the Income Tax Business Application Platform (ITBA). However, the Circular noted that some notices were being issued manually without providing an audit trail of communication. To prevent manual communication, the CBDT in exercise of its powers under Section 119, IT Act, 1961 issued the impugned Circular. Paragraph 2 of the Circular mandated that no communication by any income tax authority relating to assessment, appeals, order, exemptions, investigation, etc. shall be issued unless a computer-generated DIN has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of such communication.    

Paragraph 3 of the Circular enlisted limited exceptions when a manual communication can be issued by an income tax authority. Paragraph 3 envisaged 5 situations: 

  • When there are technical difficulties in generating/allotting/quoting the DIN
  • When communication is required to be issued by an income tax authority who is outside the office 
  • When due to delay in PAN migration, PAN is with non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer
  • When PAN of assessee is not available and proceeding under the IT Act, 1961 is sought to be initiated 
  • When functionality to issue communication is not available in the system 

However, to issue the manual communication in any of the above 5 situations, reasons need to be recorded in writing and prior written permission of Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income Tax is required. Further, the manual communication needs to state the fact that communication is being issued manually without generating a DIN and the date of written approval. For manual communication in situations (i), (ii), and (iii), Paragraph 5 of the Circular states that the communication needs to be ‘regularised’ by uploading it on the System, generating a DIN and communicating the DIN to the assessee. Presumably, the generation of DIN and its communication to assessee would happen on an ex-post basis, but the requirement of generating the DIN needs to be fulfilled nonetheless in these situations.   

Paragraph 4, crucially, and in unambiguous terms states the consequence for not adhering to the mandate of the Circular: any ‘communication which is not in conformity with Para-2 and Para-3 above, shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued.’   

The above summary of the Circular leaves no doubt that the intent of CBDT is to make manual communication by income tax authorities an exception and electronic communication containing DIN a norm. This is evident in the fact that even when manual communication is allowed under certain exigencies, it needs to be regularised on ITBA to ensure an audit trail. And the seriousness of the intent is reflected in Paragraph 4 which states that a ‘DIN-less’ communication is non-existent in law. 

The above Circular was to have effect from 01.10.2019.   

Legal Issues 

Since the issuance of the Circular, Income Tax Appellate Tribunals and High Courts have, on various instances, opined on the effect of the Circular. The general fact pattern has been that an income tax authority issued a communication after 01.10.2019 without generating the DIN, or without mentioning it in the body of the communication or communicating with the assessee manually without the Income Tax Department being able to justify that any of the 5 exceptional situations existed. The assessees have challenged the ‘DIN-less’ communications as invalid and judicial authorities have pre-dominantly favored the assessee. The three legal prongs on which the decisions stand are: 

First, Circulars issued by CBDT under Section 119 of IT Act, 1961 are binding on the Revenue, i.e., all officers and persons employed in execution of the IT Act, 1961 need to compulsorily adhere to CBDT’s Circular. 

Second, strict interpretation of Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the CBDT Circular. Former requires generation of DIN and quoting it in the body of communication. Accordingly, ex post generation of DIN and communicating it to the assessee or not mentioning the DIN in the body of communication has been held to be non-compliance of the Circular’s mandate. 

Third, the Income Tax Department cannot take recourse to Section 292B of IT Act, 1961. Section 292B, IT Act, 1961 states that any return of income, assessment, notice, etc. shall not be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission if the communication or proceeding are in substance and effect in conformity with the intent and purpose of IT Act, 1961. Delhi High Court observed that the defence of Section 292B is not available to the Income Tax Department since the ‘phraseology’ used in Paragraph 4 of the Circular is clear: a communication not issued in accordance with the conditions prescribed in Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall have no standing in law. The Delhi High Court’s judgment has now been stayed by the Supreme Court. 

The Income Tax Department in filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision is signaling that it is not bound by CBDT’s Circular or that it would only adhere to the Circular if it is aligned with the Department’s interpretation, i.e., generating DIN and quoting it in the body of the communication is only a procedural formality and not following the said procedure should not affect the validity of the communication. The Income Department’s interpretation though is not on sound legal footing as the Circular is clear that not following the prescribed procedure would render the communication non-existent in the eyes of law. What is the middle path that the Supreme Court can invent? Even if the Supreme Court states that the Income Tax Department can claim the defence of Section 292B, it would be akin to reading down Paragraph 4 of the Circular. Perhaps the Income Tax Department can press upon the Supreme Court that if ‘DIN-less’ communications are held to be invalid, it would result in a vacuum in certain assessment proceedings, risk loss of revenue, and create legal uncertainty. This consequential approach has succeeded before Courts in various instances and can possibly have traction in the impugned case as well. But, to my mind, it will not be prudent and would directly contradict CBDT’s stance.  

Supreme Court Reduces Penalty under Section 129, CGST Act: Clarifies that Decision is Not a Precedent

by

Supreme Court in a recent case[1], directed that the penalty imposed on the assessee for transporting goods without a valid e-way bill should be reduced by 50%. While the Calcutta High Court had upheld the levy of penalty, the Supreme Court to serve ‘ the ends of justice’ reduced the penalty amount by half, without articulating any convincing reason for its conclusion and stated that its order in the impugned case should not be treated as a precedent.   

Facts 

The brief facts of the case are: the assessee was in the business of horizontal drilling in underground utilities and availed the services of M/s Hariom Freight Carriers for transportation of one its machines weighing 68 tons from its previous work site in Uttar Pradesh to West Bengal. The e-way bill for transportation was generated on 30 May 2019, and it was valid until 9 June 2019. The transportation was not done within the validity period and the vehicle was intercepted on 17 June 2019 and was found carrying goods without a valid e-way bill. Accordingly, the assessee was issued a notice as to why it should not pay a tax of Rs 54,00,000 and a penalty of equivalent amount. The said amount was confirmed against which the assessee filed an appeal. The assessee deposited 10% of the tax demand and furnished a bank guarantee of the amount of demand to secure release of its machine. However, the appeal was not decided and the Calcutta High Court directed that the appeal be decided. Eventually, the High Court ordered that the tax be paid in cash, 50% of the penalty amount be paid in cash and the remaining 50% of the penalty amount be paid by furnishing a bank guarantee which should be valid for 1 year. Against the said order, the assessee approached the Supreme Court.     

Arguments and Decision 

The assessee’s arguments before the Supreme Court centred around reduction of the penalty amount. The assessee argued that the imposition of such a heavy penalty would lead to financial hardship for it. The assessee had no justifiable reason for not generating another e-way bill after expiry of the first one. The assessee could only suggest that M/s Hariom Freight Carriers did not have another vehicle available for transportation and it did not inform the assessee about it, which led to transportation of the machine accompanied by an expired e-way bill. The assessee also added that the transaction in question was not a sale/purchase but merely the transport of its capital goods from one place to another and the entire set of circumstances should be taken cognizance of to reduce its penalty.

The Revenue Department, on the other hand, defended the imposition of penalty by clearly and cogently arguing that the assessee had no valid reason for not carrying a valid e-way bill and in the absence of a valid e-way bill, it was completely justified to levy a tax and penalty on the assessee. The Revenue Department added that there was a gap of 10 days between expiry of e-way bill and interception of the transport, and the assessee should have been more vigilant. And if another vehicle was not available, then the assessee should not have agreed to transport the machine without a valid e-way bill. 

The Supreme Court referred to three distinct facts: first, an e-way bill was generated by the assessee, even if goods were transported after it had expired; second, the fact that the machine was being transported for use of the assessee itself, but in another place and there was no sale/purchase involved; third, that the penalty of a huge amount of Rs 54,00,000 was imposed on the assessee. The Court said that while it would not have ordinarily interfered, ‘the ends of justice’ would be served if the penalty amount is reduced by 50%. And concluded its order by clarifying that the order was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution and should not be treated as a precedent. 

Conclusion 

Ordinarily, one would not quibble if a Court intervenes to reduce the penalty imposed on an assessee if it in the opinion of the Court the penalty is unjust or harsh. However, in such scenarios the onerous nature of the penalty should be obvious. In the impugned case, while the penalty amount was certainly on the higher side, it is difficult to see how the assessee was not at fault. It was negligent behaviour on assessee’s part for allowing goods to be transported on an e-way bill that had expired 10 days before the vehicle was intercepted. While the fact that a penalty may impose financial hardship is an acceptable reason for reducing the quantum of penalty, the assessee’s conduct, in my opinion, did not merit the leniency shown by the Supreme Court.     

[1] Vardan Associates Pvt Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Central Section & Ors TS-692-SC-2023-GST. 

Supreme Court Opines on Nature of Section 19 of 101st Constitutional Amendment

by

In a recent judgment[1], a Division Bench of the Supreme Court engaged in depth with the scope, meaning, and implication of Section 19 of The Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 (‘101st Amendment’) which catalysed the introduction of GST. Section 19 was a transitory provision which stated that existing indirect tax laws would be valid for one year or until States amend them to bring them in conformity with the 101stAmendment, whichever was earlier. The Supreme Court opined that Section 19 was transitory in nature and for that one year it was the repository of competence of State legislatures powers to amend the existing/pre-GST indirect tax laws. It held that the said legislative power could not be exercised after the period of one year contemplated under Section 19.  

Facts 

The case involved three batch of appeals that arose from special leave petitions filed in the case. 

First, related to the State of Telangana where the local VAT law was amended after coming into force of the 101st Amendment, i.e., 16.09.2016. State of Telangana amended the VAT law via an ordinance dated 17.06.2017 and thereafter the State legislature enacted a law replacing the ordinance which came into force on 02.12.2017. The amendment to VAT law was challenged and the Telangana High Court struck it down on the ground that State legislature could have exercised the power of amendment under Section 19 of the 101stAmendment only to bring the VAT law in conformity with GST laws. Also, the Ordinance could not have been confirmed since the State was denuded of legislative competence under Section 19 after 01.07.2017. Since GST laws came into force on 01.07.2017, the one year time period under Section 19 expired on the said date.     

Second, in the Gujarat batch of cases Section 84A was introduced in the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 via an amendment gazette on 06.04.2018 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2006. The aim of introducing the said provision was to enable to the Revenue Department to open assessments which had attained finality. The Gujarat High Court struck down the amendment on the ground of lack of legislative competence on part of State legislature after 01.07.2017 and also on the ground that the amendment was manifestly arbitrary. 

Third, involved amendment to the Maharashtra VAT Act. On 15.04.2017 the amendment to the said act was gazetted and thereafter an explanation was added via an Ordinance w.e.f. 06.03.2019. Thereafter, on 09.07.2019 the Ordinance was replaced by the Amendment Act which inserted various provisions including the said explanation. The amendment was upheld by the Bombay High Court and appeals were filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment. 

Legal Issue and Arguments 

I think, it is best to upfront cite the provision that was the centrepiece of the judgment, i.e., Section 19 of the 101st Amendment which states as follows: 

Notwithstanding anything in this Act, any provision of any law relating to tax on goods or services or on both in force in any State immediately before the commencement of this Act, which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution as amended by this Act shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier. (emphasis added)

At first glance, Section 19 reveals three things: first, it is a transitory provision; second, it allowed the States to amend pre-existing sales tax provisions make them consistent with the 101st Amendment; third, pre-existing laws such as VAT would cease to have force after one year of commencement of the provision or when they were amended or repealed, whichever was earlier. The one year was until 01.07.2017 when the GST laws came into force. The Supreme Court had to adjudicate on the nature and extent of legislative power conferred to the State legislatures under Section 19. 

To justify amendments to its local VAT law, the primary argument that the State of Telangana’s counsel made was that the effect of an Ordinance and a law was the same, only their manner of creation differed. And that the difference was only about procedure adopted and not subject matter of both legislative instruments. Thus, when the State legislature approved the Ordinance to amend the VAT law was enacted on 02.12.2017, its terms ‘related back’ to the date when the Ordinance was promulgated, i.e., 16.09.2016. Thus, the State legislature’s power to enact the law was preserved even after 01.07.2017. (para 27)

Counsel for State of Maharashtra, in a similar vein, argued that the material fact was the existence of the legislative power with States and not the manner of its exercise. It was argued that Section 19 preserved the power of States to amend the laws and it was erroneous to state that the power to amend the laws was only confined to bring the existing laws in conformity with the GST laws.    

The respondents led with their primary argument by drawing an analogy with Section 19 of the 101stAmendment with Article 243ZF of the Constitution.[2] They argued that the latter was incorporated in the Constitution – via 74th Constitutional Amendment – solely with the purpose of allowing amendments to existing laws and bring them in conformity with the new provisions of the Constitution. Similarly, they argued that Section 19 was limited in conferring legislative power to States, i.e., to bring existing laws in conformity with the 101st Amendment. The respondents relied on Section 19 not being made part of the Constitution text per se, but that it was only included in the Amendment Act and argued that it should be interpreted restrictively. The respondents further argued that interpreting the term ‘amend’ used in Section 19 to confer a power on States to make a law wider than curative legislation which runs contrary to the revised Constitutional architecture introduced by the 101st Amendment would not be in aid of the said Amendment.  

Supreme Court’s Observations on Section 19 

The Supreme Court, in a well-reasoned and detailed judgment has described the changes introduced by the 101st Amendment, its rationale, and the nature of transitory provisions among other things. In this post, I will elaborate on its three main observations on Section 19 that I think are relevant from the perspective of examining the interface of the Constitution and tax. 

First, one of the issues that the Supreme Court had to engage with was the effect of Section 19 not being included in the Constitution itself unlike, for example, Article 243ZF. And whether Section 19 was only ancillary to the 101st Amendment and thereby required to be interpreted in a narrow fashion. Supreme Court observed that the purpose of Section 19 was to preserve the existing laws and allow the Parliament and States to repeal and amend them. Since the 101st Amendment deleted various legislative entries relating to indirect taxes, the absence of such a provision would have been ‘catastrophic’ and denuded the States and Union of such crucial legislative power. (para 74) Comparing Section 19 with Article 243ZF, the Supreme Court noted that: 

However, the fact remains that those provisions as well as Section 19 were enacted in exercise of the constituent power. Section 19 is not, in this court’s opinion comparable to a mere Parliamentary enactment. There cannot be any gain in saying that Section 19 is not a mere legislative device. It was adopted as part of the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act. Undoubtedly, it was not inserted into the Constitution. Whatever reasons impelled Parliament to keep it outside the body of the Constitution, the fact remains that it was introduced as part of the same Amendment Act which entirely revamped the Constitution. (para 80)

The Supreme Court concluded that Section 19 was a transitory provision with limited life and whether it was part of the Constitution or not was academic, what was crucial was the effect of the provision. Thus, as per the Supreme Court the entire argument that Section 19 should be interpreted in a particular manner because of it being part of the Amendment Act but being included in the Constitution per se was irrelevant. Section 19 was enacted via the same process as other provisions of the Amendment Act and was a result of exercise of constituent power and not legislative power. 

Second, the Supreme Court then opined on the effect of the first observation, i.e., Section 19 was enacted as a result of exercise of constituent power. The Supreme Court noted that the 101st Amendment had brought significant changes to the Constitution in terms legislative powers relating to indirect taxes via deletion of legislative entries and thus the legislative powers of States and the Union ‘had to be directly sourced from the Amendment’ in the interim period. (para 92) As per the Supreme Court, in the hiatus period between coming into force of Section 19 and operationalising Article 246A (under which the States and Parliament exercise legislative powers on GST) legislative power should be traced to Section 19. 

In other words, the Supreme Court said that Section 19 was part of the Constitution since it was enacted through the same process as other provisions of the Constitution Amendment. And that since the 101stAmendment deleted previous sources of powers to levy indirect taxes and introduced new a locus of power under Article 246A, the source of legislative power for the transition period should be traced to Section 19. The ‘hiatus’ as per the Supreme Court was because the GST Council had not immediately recommended principles on the basis of which GST laws could be enacted in exercise of powers under Article 246A. And thus concluded that:

It is, therefore, held that there were no limitations under Section 19 (read together with Article 246A), of the Amendment. That provision constituted the expression of the sovereign legislative power, available to both Parliament and state legislatures, to make necessary changes through amendment to the existing laws. (para 97) 

The legislative power under Section 19, as per the Supreme Court, was only constricted by time, i.e., till 01.07.2017 and not in any other manner as suggested by parties to the case. 

The above is a liberal and expansive interpretation of Section 19 and goes far beyond what the text of the provision says. However, the Supreme Court justified by contextualising it and commenting on the drastic changes brought via the 101st Amendment. In my view, Section 19 only allowed States to amend existing provisions to bring them in conformity with the Constitution or enact new provisions to the same end. Section 19 did not allow States or the Parliament to enact any other provision for any other purpose. The restriction was not ‘only’ of time, but also of the nature and purpose of provisions that could be enacted and amended under Section 19. 

Third, and this is an indirect but proximate point, i.e., the Supreme Court clarified that Section 19 could not be used to clothe a retrospective amendment with validity. In other words, while the VAT Act may have been validly enacted, but once the power of States to enact or amend such laws ceased on 01.07.2017, then the States cannot amend the laws after the said date on the ground that laws can be amended retrospectively to cure a defect. The Supreme Court clarified that what was material was the presence of competence on the date on which amendment to the law was made and not the date when the law was enacted. (para 115)

Conclusion 

Supreme Court’s judgment in the impugned case is a well reasoned judgment that examines in depth the impact and nature of transitory provisions. While the Court may have, in my opinion, interpreted the scope of powers provided to the States more expansively than I think Section 19 provides, the end result nonetheless was that all the amendments to VAT Acts of the three States were held to be void on the ground that the States exercised their legislative powers once Section 19 had ceased to have effect. Telangana’s argument of ‘relating back’ was rejected on the ground that the State legislature did not possess competence on the date it enacted the amendment to approve the Ordinance. Similarly, the Supreme Court rejected the State of Gujarat’s argument that the amendment though effected after 01.07.2017 was retrospective in nature. Amendments by State of Maharashtra met the same fate. 

[1] The State of Telangana V M/S Tirumala Constructions 2023 INSC 942. 

[2] Article 243ZF of the Constitution states that: Notwithstanding anything in this Part, any provision of any law relating to Municipalities in force in a State immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier:   

No Advertisement Tax on Name Boards or Sign Boards

by

In a recent judgment[1], the Supreme Court set aside demand notices for advertisement tax issued by the Indore Municipal Corporation against the appellant. The demand notices for advertisement tax were issued to the appellant because they had displayed their name/sign boards outside their business premises which the Municipal Corporation deemed to be advertisement and thus liable to pay advertisement tax. The Supreme Court opined on the meaning of advertisement, cited relevant precedents, and concluded that sign boards do not constitute advertisements and are not exigible to advertisement tax. 

Facts 

The appellant in the impugned case was occupier of premises on AB Road, Indore and was carrying on the business of Hyundai passenger cars at the said premises. The appellant had displayed its trade name as well as the product and services offered by it in the premises where the business was being run. The Indore Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the appellant for recovery of advertisement tax for displaying the sign board at its premises. The notice was issued under the relevant Municipal Corporation statute read with the relevant Municipal Corporation advertisement by-laws. 

The appellant objected to the notice demanding advertisement tax on the ground that it was not displaying any advertisement but its own trade and business name. The appellant also argued that it was carrying on business outside the municipal limits of Indore and thus no tax was leviable on its activities. Appellant’s writ petition against the notices was rejected by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and it appealed before the Supreme Court. 

Arguments 

The appellant assailed the Madhya Pradesh’s judgment on various grounds: first, that the High Court relied on Bharti Airtel judgment[2] which was irrelevant to the facts at hand; second, mere display of name and business cannot amount to advertisement as the said information is only for identification purposes and providing information to the general public; third, the appellant contended that levy of advertisement tax on trade name would amount to violation of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution 

The State, on the other hand, contended that appellant’s displaying their trade name along with the products and services offered by them amounted to advertisement as the said information was communicated to the public not only for information purposes but also for commercial exploitation. 

Supreme Court Opines on Meaning of ‘Advertisement’

The Supreme Court framed the primary issue as: whether display boards, sign boards or name boards as displayed by the appellants would constitute as advertisements? The incidental question, as per the Supreme Court, was whether all modes of display would amount to advertisement? To answer this question, the Supreme Court relied heavily on the ICICI Bank case[3] where the meaning of advertisement in a comparable context had been examined. The Supreme Court in ICICI Bank case had noted that an advertisement should have a commercial purpose or exposition and should indicate business of the displayer with a view to attract people to its goods or services. The Supreme Court in ICICI Bank case opined on the issue of whether signs that illuminated ATM centres would constitute as advertisements. It did not give a clear answer and observed that signs of ATMs provide information to public as to a facility available at the said place but could also be used indirectly for commercial exploitation for commercial purposes. And the answer to this issue would depend on facts of each case. 

The Supreme Court said the guidelines in in ICICI Bank case, would prima facie indicate that in the impugned case:  

… as dealers of Tata Motors and Hyundai Vehicles appellants have displayed their name board of respective business establishment which is also depicting the nature of the respective vehicles which are being sold and it would be inseparable part of the appellants’ business establishment. By mere mentioning the name of the product in which the business establishment is being run would not partake the character of the advertisement until and unless by such display customers are solicited. (para 18)

 The Supreme Court added that in the absence of any name board or sign board it would be impossible to identify establishments and the sign boards displayed by appellants on their business premises only provide general information of the products offered by them and not to solicit customers or induce general public to purchase their products.  

Finally, the Supreme Court made a curious statement. It noted that under the relevant statutory provisions the Municipal Corporation was not authorized to demand tax for display of information through name boards. And that legislative was not to levy tax on sign boards but only on advertisements. It then noted that:

            Even in such circumstances, it is held that it amounts to advertisement, such levy would be without authority of law and would find foul of Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and Article 265 of the Constitution of India. (para 18) 

Does the above cited sentence mean that a sign board even if amounts to advertisement would not have been taxable under the relevant provisions? It is a curious sentence since it renders futile the entire argument made by the State. If the State, under the relevant provisions, could not tax a sign board even if it amounted to an advertisement what was the need to distinguish a sign board from an advertisement?  

Conclusion 

Presuming that distinguishing a sign board from an advertisement was crucial in the impugned case, it cannot be denied that distinguishing a sign board from an advertisement is a fraught exercise and the Supreme Court in ICICI Bank case was correct in laying down the broad parameters and stating that whether a particular information amounts to advertisement or not should be determined on the facts of each case. An attractive display of only the products and services offered by a business could amount to an advertisement in certain cases while it could be understood to be a mere sign board in other cases. In the impugned case, the Supreme Court favored the appellant relying on its assertion that its sign board was only aimed to identify its business and not solicit customers; though the distinction may not be as apparent in all cases. In ICICI Bank case, the Supreme Court noted that the non-commercial element of the illuminated ATM centre was that it was a public facility while in the impugned case the non-commercial element was that the sign board helps the general public identify a business place. It is reasonable to deduce from the above cases that if the non-commercial element dominates and is not intended to solicit customers it can be said to not amount to advertisement though the said issue can only be answered by looking at the signs in each case and after ascertaining the relevant facts. 

[1] M/S Harsh Automobiles Private Limited v Indore Municipal Corporation 2023 INSC 893. Available at https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/3032/3032_2018_8_1502_47486_Judgement_09-Oct-2023.pdf (Last accessed on 12 October 2023).  

[2] Bharti Airtel v State of Madhya Pradesh WP No. 2296 of 2012, decided on 12.01.2015. (This judgment addressed the issue of whether advertisement tax could be collected by appointing agents and was not relevant to the facts of impugned case. It was incorrectly relied on by the High Court and the Supreme Court correctly said that the Bharti Airtel case was irrelevant to the impugned case.). 

[3] ICICI Bank and Another v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (2005) 6 SC 404. 

Supreme Court Reiterates Non-Obstante Clause of Section 529A, Companies Act, 1956

by

In a recent judgment[1], the Supreme Court opined on the priority to be accorded to custom authorities vis-à-vis secured creditors under the Companies Act, 1956. It accorded due deference to the overriding nature of Section 529A under which tax due by a company under winding up is not to be the foremost payment. While the judgment is under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 it is important to highlight how a seemingly straightforward issue – ranking of tax dues from a company under the winding up or insolvency process – has a unduly long legacy that continues to simmer under the IBC as well. 

Introduction 

The appeal before the Supreme Court was against an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court where it held that notwithstanding the winding up order against the impugned company – M/s Sri Vishnupriya Industries Limited – and Sections 529A and 530 of the Companies Act, 1956, the custom authorities have the first right to sell the imported goods and adjust the sale proceeds towards payment of customs duty. The appeal was filed by Industrial Development Bank of India from which the company had sought financial assistance and to which the company had hypothecated movable properties, namely machinery and its components.

The company had imported the machinery and components and on failure to pay the customs duty, an order was passed to detain and sell the said property for satisfaction of the outstanding customs duty. In the meanwhile, an order for winding up of company was passed and the Official Liquidator so appointed requested the custom authorities to hand over the properties of the company which the latter planned to auction for payment of customs duty. The Andhra Pradesh High Court faced with the question as to whether the rights of a secured creditor should have precedence over custom authorities, decided in favor of the latter.    

Interplay of Provisions of Companies Act, 1956

Supreme Court was categorical, and rightly so, in its examination of Section 529A of Companies Act, 1956. It noted that Section 529A enlisted that workmen’s dues and debts of secured creditors shall be paid in preference to all other payments, and the non-obstante clause in the provision made it clear that these payments were to be made in preference to all other payments in the winding up of a company. And all other payments enlisted in Section 530 were to be made subject to the prescription of Section 529A. Supreme Court concluded that it is ‘beyond debate’ that provisions of Section 529A shall prevail of Section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956. (para 11)

The result of this clear and unambiguous position and effect of both provisions, was, in Supreme Court’s own words: 

… IDBI is an overriding preferential creditor under Section 529A of the Companies Act and at best, if the requirements of clause (a) to Section 530(1) of the Companies Act are satisfied, the customs dues would fall under Section 530 of the Companies Act and will be categorized as preferential payment. (para 19) 

The Supreme Court, out of abundant caution, went into the meaning and interpretation of certain phrases used in Section 529A and Section 530, Companies Act, 1956. It went into detail and cited precedents as to what the terms ‘due’ and ‘due and payable’ mean under the provisions. 

The Supreme Court then clarified that as per the law laid down in relevant precedents, such as the Dena Bankcase[2], government dues do not have priority over secured creditors. The principle so enunciated in the Dena Bank case aligned with the Supreme Court’s interpretation and interplay of Section 529A and Section 530 in the impugned case. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the principle laid down in the Dena Bank case must give way to a statutory charge that may be created by an enactment. In the context of impugned case, it meant that the Supreme Court had to examine if Customs Act, 1962 created a first charge for payment of customs duty and if there was a conflict between the Companies Act, 1956 and Customs Act, 1962. Supreme Court’s conclusion on this point was: 

The provisions in the Customs Act do not, in any manner, negate or override the statutory preference in terms of Section 529A of the Companies Act, which treats the secured creditors and the workmen’s dues as overriding preferential creditors; and the government dues limited to debts ‘due and payable’ in the twelve months next before the relevant date, which are to be treated as preferential payments under Section 530 of the Companies Act, but are ranked below overriding preferential payments and have to be paid after the payment has been made in terms of Section 529 and 529A of the Companies Act. Therefore, the prior secured creditors are entitled to enforce their charge, notwithstanding the government dues payable under the Customs Act. (para 24)

The Supreme Court further clarified that the charge created under Section 142A, Customs Act, 1962 protects the rights of third parties under Section 529A, Companies Act, 1956 inter alia of those under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. And that Section 142A, Customs Act, 1962 does not create a first charge on the dues payable under the said legislation.         

Conclusion

While the Supreme Court’s judgment focuses on the interplay of provisions of Companies Act, 1956, its observations in the latter half of the judgment clarify, to some extent, the position of law after the implementation of IBC. The fact that Customs Act, 1962 does not create a statutory charge is an important and correct position of law as it clarifies that tax authorities – at least, customs authorities – are not placed above the preferential creditors. This may prove useful in unfortunate but frequent disputes between tax authorities seeking priority payment of outstanding dues over secured creditors of the company under insolvency, despite that the waterfall mechanism under IBC does not place the tax authorities above the secured creditors.  

[1] Industrial Development Bank of India v Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs and Others, available at https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/114/114_2009_3_1501_46202_Judgement_18-Aug-2023.pdf (Last accessed on 21 August 2023). 

[2] Dena Bank v Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co and Others (2000) 5 SCC 694. 

Interface of IBC and Tax: Supreme Court Clarifies

by

In a notable judgment[1], the Supreme Court has clarified the waterfall mechanism under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) vis-à-vis the claims of secured interests and the place of the Revenue Department in the pecking order. 

Introduction 

The appellant, PVVNL was aggrieved by an order of the NCLAT directing release of the corporate debtor’s property. The property was attached by the District Magistrate in favor of the appellant, but NCLAT ordered its release for sale in favor of the liquidator to distribute the proceeds in accordance with the IBC.  

The appellant raised bills for supply of electricity to corporate debtor but since the bills remained unpaid, the appellant attached the properties of the corporate debtor and restrained transfer of property by sale, donation, or any other mode. The corporate debtor underwent a resolution under IBC failing which it became subject to liquidation. The liquidator took the plea that unless the attachment orders were set aside no one would purchase the property of the corporate debtor. Further, the appellant would be classified in the order of priority prescribed under waterfall mechanism of IBC. Both, NCLT and NCLAT endorsed the view that appellant was an operational creditor and would realize its due in the liquidation process as per the law.   

Arguments and Supreme Court’s Observations 

One of the appellant’s arguments was that the charge on property was created under the Electricity Act, 2003 and it being a special legislation should have priority over general legislation such as IBC. Supreme Court did not accept the appellant’s argument claiming priority of Electricity Act, 2003 over IBC. However, Supreme Court acknowledged that a reading of the relevant provisions of the agreement between the appellant and corporate debtor revealed that the appellant could create a charge on the property of the latter in event of unpaid bills. And that a valid charge was created in favor of the appellant. The crucial question was the priority that the appellant would acquire under the IBC. 

The counsel for liquidator argued that the amount due to the appellant was ‘government dues’ and low in priority as per the waterfall mechanism of Section 53, IBC. Supreme Court disagreed and noted that dues payable to statutory corporations were on a different footing compared to the amounts payable to the central and state governments. Supreme Court observed that: 

PVVNL undoubtedly has government participation. However, that does not render it a government or a part of the ‘State Government’. Its functions can be replicated by other entities, both private and public. The supply of electricity, the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity has been liberalized in terms of the 2003 Act barring certain segments. Private entities are entitled to hold licenses. In this context, it has to be emphasized that private participation as distribution licensees is fairly widespread. For these reasons, it is held that in the present case, dues or amounts payable to PVVNL do not fall within the description of Section 53(1)(f) of the IBC. (para 47)

The appellant – PVVNL – on the other hand, relied on Rainbow Papers case which had held that the debts owed to a secured creditor included tax due to the Government under the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003. The Rainbow Papers case was an anomaly as the waterfall mechanism clearly prescribes priority to secured creditors while placing the government dues lower in the pecking order. The Supreme Court refused to adhere to the Rainbow Papers case and observed that the Court in that case ‘did not notice’ Section 53, IBC. Commenting on the Rainbow Papers case, Supreme Court observed:

Furthermore, Rainbow Papers (supra) was in the context of a resolution process and not during liquidation. Section 53, as held earlier, enacts the waterfall mechanism providing for the hierarchy or priority of claims of various classes of creditors. The careful design of Section 53 locates amounts payable to secured creditors and workmen at the second place, after the costs and expenses of the liquidator payable during the liquidation proceedings. However, the dues payable to the government are placed much below those of secured creditors and even unsecured and operational creditors. This design was either not brought to the notice of the court in Rainbow Papers (supra) or was missed altogether. In any event, the judgment has not taken note of the provisions of the IBC which treat the dues payable to secured creditors at a higher footing than dues payable to Central or State Government. (para 49)

The above observations are a categorical rejection of the inadequate reasoning adopted in Rainbow Paperscase whereby government was equated as a secured creditor and helped the government claim tax dues on priority by ‘jumping’ the queue. The Supreme Court in the impugned case was accurate in its observation that if there was no specific and separate enumeration of government dues under Section 53(1)(e) of IBC, it would be possible to hold that the government is a secured creditor. However, the enumeration of separate categories of a secured creditor and government dues under Section 53 indicates the Parliament’s intent to treat the latter differently and at a lower priority. 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s observations in the impugned case are welcome. The Revenue has in various attempts tried to bypass the waterfall mechanism of IBC by making various arguments such as tax dues should be treated as part of the insolvency costs as the latter are first in priority under the waterfall mechanism. It is important to recognize the importance of the observations in in the impugned case and yet be mindful that the Supreme Court has not expressly overruled the Rainbow case. For example, the Supreme Court did add that the observations made in the Rainbow case were in the context of resolution process while the impugned case involved liquidation. (para 49) We are likely to witness more disputes on the interface of IBC and tax in the future. Though, a more reasonable interpretation of the waterfall mechanism under Section 53, IBC suggests that the Supreme Court’s observations in the impugned case are more reasonable and accurate.     

[1] Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v Raman Ispat Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534. 

LinkedIn