Supreme Court

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

by

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

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

Introduction

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

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

Using Legislative History as an Aid to Constitutional Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bifurcating Recommendations into Two Categories 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Machinery Provisions Brook No Vested Rights: Supreme Court Holds that Amendment to Section 153C, IT Act, 1961 is Retrospective

by

On 6 April 2023, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Vikram Bhatia case[1], held that the amendment to Section 153C, IT Act, 1961 was retrospective in nature and would be applicable to searches conducted even before the date of amendment, i.e., 1.06.2015. The Supreme Court’s decision is another example of its deferential approach to the State in tax matters. The impugned case also highlights that the Revenue Department is not hesitant to argue that an amendment is retrospective on the pretext that the pre-amendment provision was interpreted contrary to legislative intent. An argument that the Supreme Court and other Courts have not scrutinized with necessary rigor.  

Background to Amendment of Section 153C, IT Act, 1961 

The relevant portion of Section 153C, as it stood before its amendment vide the Finance Act, 2015, provided that where the assessing officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other a person against whom search is conducted, then such books of account or assets shall be handed over to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over the other person. And the other person may be issued notice and their income reassessed under Section 153-A, IT Act, 1961.   

The Delhi High Court in Pepsico India case[2] held that the words ‘belongs or belong to’ should not be confused with ‘relates to or refers to’. In this case, the Delhi High Court noted that if  the purchaser’s premises are searched and a registered sale deed is seized, it cannot be said that it ‘belongs to’ to the vendor just because his name is mentioned in the document. (para 16) The Delhi High Court’s interpretation meant that the assessing officer could only initiate proceedings against a third party if the incriminating material found during search proceedings ‘belonged to’ the third party and not merely ‘related to’ the third party. The Revenue Department’s stance was that the Delhi High Court’s interpretation did not align with the intent of the provision. Though the Revenue Department’s disagreement with the Delhi High Court’s ruling could also stem from the fact that its interpretation set a high threshold for the assessing officer to invoke Section 153C against a third party. 

To overcome the effect of the Delhi High Court’s judgment, Finance Act, 2015 amended Section 153C, and Section 153C(1)(b) now states that where the assessing officer is satisfied that any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, person other than against whom search is conducted, then such books of account or assets shall be handed over to the assessing officer having jurisdiction having jurisdiction over the other person. And the other person may be issued notice and their income reassessed under Section 153-A, IT Act, 1961.   

The scope of Section 153C was clearly widened, the threshold to proceed against a third party was lowered with the phrase ‘belongs to’ being replaced with ‘relates to’. The expression ‘belongs to’ though continued to qualify money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing mentioned in Section 153C(1)(a).  

Interpretation of Amended Section 153C, IT Act, 1961      

The Supreme Court heard appeals from common judgment[3] of the Gujarat High Court pronounced in April 2019. The Gujarat High Court observed that though Section 153C was a machinery provision, but by virtue of its amendment new class of assessees were brought within the scope of the provision and it affected their substantive rights and resultantly Section 153C could not be interpreted to be a mere procedural/machinery provision. Further, the Gujarat High Court reasoned that the amended provision was much wider in scope as compared to its predecessor. The Gujarat High Court concluded that amendment to Section 153C shall not be given a retrospective effect, and no notices could be issued post-amendment of Section 153C for searches conducted before its amendment, i.e., 1.06.2015. Against this decision of the Gujarat High Court, the Supreme Court heard appeals filed by the Revenue Department.    

The precise question before the Supreme Court was whether amendment to Section 153C, IT Act, 1961 was retrospective? And whether Section 153C, IT Act, 1961 would be applicable to searches conducted before 1.06.2015, i.e., the date before amendment. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. There are several limitations in the Supreme Court’s approach, let me highlight a few below. 

First, the Supreme Court accepted the State’s argument that the amendment to Section 153C, IT Act, 1961 was ‘a case of substitution of the words by way of amendment’. (para 10.1) The Supreme Court cited numerous precedents to the effect without really explaining the basis on which it was deciphering that the amendment in question was a ‘substitution’ amendment. In fact, the Supreme Court adopted a broad brush approach and neglected to observe that even post-amendment Section 153C(1)(a) retains the phrase ‘belongs to’. Section 153C(1), after amendment vide the Finance Act, 2015 states that: 

Nothwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Office is satisfied that,-

  • any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requistioned, belongs to; or 
  • any books of account or documents, seized or requistioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to,   

a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, … (emphasis added) 

Clearly, both phrases ‘belong to’ and ‘relates to’ have been retained in Section 153C. And the afore cited portion of Section 153C provides reasonable basis to argue that the Finance Act, 2015 did not effectuate a ‘substitution amendment’ of Section 153C. The amendment only lowers the threshold to initiate the proceedings against the third person for certain kinds of documents and does not fully substitute the pre-amended provision.    

Second, the Supreme Court reasoned that Section 153C, IT Act, 1961 was a machinery provision and it must be construed to give effect to the purpose and object of the statute. (para 10.6) The Supreme Court then cited a host of decisions to support its stance that machinery provisions must be construed liberally. However, the decisions cited by the Supreme Court such as Calcutta Knitwears case[4], hold that machinery provisions should be interpreted liberally to give meaning to the charging provision. The judicial precedents on this issue do not state that machinery provisions should be interpreted liberally per se. Neither do any of the precedents cited by the Supreme Court state that legislative intent needs to be placed at the highest pedestal without weighing it against other factors such as taxpayer rights. 

Third, the Supreme Court rejected the assessee’s contention that Section 153C, IT Act, 1961 should not be interpreted to have retrospective effect since it affected the substantive rights of the third party. The Supreme Court rejected the argument on the ground that the pre-amended Section 153C was also applicable to the third party. While the Supreme Court is right, its statement does not sufficiently appreciate that the threshold to proceed against the third party after amendment to Section 153C was lowered directly affecting the rights of such party. Instead, it stressed that there was legislative intent to proceed against the third party before and after the amendment without delving into the details. Equally, the Supreme Court dismissed the argument that there is presumption against retrospectivity of a statute. The Supreme Court examined the jurisprudence on presumption against/for retrospectivity superficially. At no place in the judgment is there an examination as to why and how the amendment to Section 153C is ‘declaratory’ and why presumption against its retrospectivity is inapplicable.            

Fourth, which overlays with the second point, is that the Supreme Court laid considerable emphasis on legislative intent. Despite immense emphasis on legislative intent, the Supreme Court did not examine as to why one sub-clause of Section 153C continued to retain ‘belongs to’ after the amendment. And, neither did it refer to any source that helps us understand the original legislative intent or the intent behind amendment to Section 153C. In the absence of such references, legislative intent is a malleable phrase in the hands of any adjudicating authority, and it was used as such in the impugned case.  

Fifth, the Supreme Court stated that the Delhi High Court construed the term ‘belongs’ unduly narrowly and restrictively, but never clarified the precise objection to the High Court’s interpretive approach. Strict interpretation of tax statutes is the default approach of Courts, and deviations from it need to be justified not adherence to it. The Delhi High Court was clear in its judgment that a tax statute must be interpreted strictly and in case of doubt or dispute must be interpreted in favor of the assessee. (para 7) And the Delhi High Court adopted such an approach in construing Section 153C, IT Act, 1961. The Supreme Court never truly explained how adopting such an approach by the Delhi High was an unjust or restrictive interpretation. 

Sixth, the Supreme Court took made an interesting point when it referred to First Proviso to Section 153C. The said Proviso contains a deeming fiction where in case of a third person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving of books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such person. The deeming fiction in the First Proviso moves the date of initiation of search to the date the assessing officer of the third person receives the documents. In the impugned case, while the search took place before 1.06.2015, the assessing officer of the third party received the documents on 25.04.2017 and issued notice to the third party on 04.05.2018. Thus, as per the deeming fiction, the search against the third party was initiated after 1.06.2015. Given these set of facts, it was not unreasonable to suggest that the applicable provision should have been the amended Section 153C. The Supreme Court’s used the First Proviso to support its conclusion (para 10.3) But the Supreme Court did not delve into the implication of the First Proviso adequately vis-à-vis its repeated emphasis on legislative intent. The Supreme Court observed that not allowing the Revenue Department to proceed against the third party ‘solely on the ground that the search was conducted prior to the amendment’ would frustrate the object and purpose of the amendment. In arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court did not satisfactorily examine how the deeming fiction in the First Proviso to Section 153C makes the actual date of initiation of search irrelevant for the third person.   

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court granting the State leeway in tax (and economic) laws is a well-entrenched doctrine in Indian tax jurisprudence. In this case, the Supreme Court used the doctrine impliedly to stamp its approval to an amendment to IT Act, 1961, stating that the amendment was retrospective in effect, without articulating its reasoning in a cogent and defensible manner. While the deeming fiction in the First Proviso to Section 153C lends some support to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, there was need for more robust reasoning to interpret the amendment to be retrospective in nature. The amendment of Section 153C has an appreciable impact on the substantive rights of the third parties. This factor alone was sufficient for the Supreme Court’s conclusion to be based on impeccable reasoning, but we only saw a glimpse of it in the judgment. 

[1] Income Tax Officer v Vikram Sujit Kumar Bhatia 2023 SCC OnLine SC 370. 

[2] Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited v ACIT 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4155. 

[3] Supreme Court, in its judgment, did not specifically state the name of parties and the exact decision. Though one of the Gujarat High Court’s decision decided in 2019 is Anikumar Gopikishan Aggarwal v CIT [2019] 106 taxmann.com 137 (Guj). In this case, the Gujarat High Court decided that amendment to Section 153C, IT Act, 1961 was prospective in nature.  

[4] Commissioner of Income Tax, III v Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana (2014) 6 SCC 444. 

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

by

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

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

Facts and Issues 

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

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

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

Summary of Jurisprudence 

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

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

No Substantial Addition to the Jurisprudence  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by

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

Introduction

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

Conditions to Claim ITC 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attributing Fault, Denying ITC, and Position under GST  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LinkedIn