Delhi High Court

IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series – IV | The Clean Slate Doctrine: Another Attempt at Laying Down the Law 

by

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (‘IBC Act, 2026’) – inter alia – amends the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) to underline scope of the clean slate doctrine. IBC Act, 2026 is the second attempt to amend Section 31 of the IBC and ensure that once the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) approves the resolution plan, it is final and binding on all stakeholders including all statutory authorities. The clean slate doctrine, as encoded in Section 31 has various aims; the primary one is to provide certainty to the successful resolution applicant that all claims not part of the approved resolution plan are extinguished. And the successful resolution applicant can take over and run the corporate debtor without the worry of discharging extraneous liabilities. However, various creditors – including statutory authorities – frequently file claims arguing that they are not bound by the approved resolution plan. The statutory authorities rely on various arguments: they weren’t issued proper notices by the resolution professional, certain claims such as taxes remain unaffected by Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) of the IBC or that they are not bound by the resolution plan since they weren’t part of CIRP. And these arguments have led to mixed results undermining lofty aims of the clean slate doctrine.   

Section 31 originally stated that a resolution plan was binding on guarantors and all stakeholders. Ideally, the latter term – ‘all stakeholders’ – should have sufficed to bind the statutory authorities. However, persistent claims filed by statutory authorities even after approval of the resolution plan prevented the clean slate doctrine from providing complete certainty to the successful resolution applicant. Thus, in 2019, Section 31 was amended to expressly state that an approved resolution plan was binding on the Central Government, State Government or a local authority to whom statutory dues are owed by the corporate debtor. However, it proved insufficient and the IBC Act, 2026 further amends Section 31 on similar lines to clarify the effect of an approved resolution plan and scope of the clean slate doctrine. 

This article provides a descriptive account of the jurisprudence that has emerged under Section 31, conceptual clarity that the courts have tried to introduce, and the pockets of uncertainty that survived the amendment to Section 31 made in 2019. Specifically, uncertainty about claims under tax laws and pending arbitration proceedings. This article thereafter elaborates on the additions made to Section 31 via the IBC Act, 2026 and claims that while the amendment introduces additional clarity and further demarcates scope of the clean slate doctrine, some pending issues may only be resolved through judicial interpretation. Specifically, issues relating to tax dues owed by the corporate debtor and unjust enrichment.       

I. Preventing a Hydra Head from Popping Up 

In CoC of Essar Steel India Ltd v Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors (‘Essar Steel case’), the Supreme Court inter alia addressed challenge to the approved resolution plan by erstwhile promoters who were personal guarantors of loans to the corporate debtor. The resolution plan – as approved by the NCLT – extinguished the right of subrogation of guarantors in respect of guarantees that had been invoked by financial creditors. The guarantors challenged the said clause and argued that since they were not part of the resolution plan submitted by the successful resolution applicant – ArcelorMittal – they cannot be bound by its terms. And that their right to subrogation survives irrespective of the terms of resolution plan. The Supreme Court cited State Bank of India v V. Ramakrishnan (‘SBI case’), to dismiss the promoters claim. The SBI case was a judgment in the context of moratorium in which the Supreme Court held that under Section 31, a resolution plan also binds the guarantors of corporate debtors. 

The Supreme Court relied on observations in the SBI case to set aside observations of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’). The NCLAT had observed that claims against corporate debtor that remained undecided, can be decided by appropriate forums even after approval of the resolution plan. The Supreme Court disagreed with the NCLAT’s directions and held that: 

A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with “undecided” claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. (para 67) (emphasis added) 

The Supreme Court, underlining the importance of certainty and finality of CIRP directed that all claims against the corporate debtor must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional. Thus, a successful resolution applicant, at the time of approval of the resolution plan, can discharge outstanding liabilities of the corporate debtor and start on a ‘clean slate’. The Supreme Court’s observations were accurate not only in respect of the IBC’s aims but also correctly clarified the import of Section 31. As per Section 31, once the NCLT approves a resolution plan it was binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, ‘guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan.’ 

II. Ghanashyam Mishra Case Underlines Effect of Section 31 vis-à-vis the State

The above-mentioned ratio of the Essar Steel case should have, ideally, sufficed to clarify legal effect of approval of a resolution plan vis-à-vis the State, including all statutory authorities. As the statutory authorities could reasonably be termed a ‘stakeholder’ in the resolution plan, even if they were not expressly mentioned in Section 31. However, the IBC was amended in 2019, to expressly clarify that the resolution plan was binding on various authorities of the State. In 2019, the following phrase was added in Section 31:  

… including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed … 

Statement of Reasons and Objects of the IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2019 mentioned that tax authorities were also bound by a resolution plan approved by the NCLT. Implying that the tax and other statutory authorities were refusing to accept that statutory dues – for example, outstanding tax payments – were also extinguished or altered as per terms of the resolution plan. The Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co Ltd (Ghanashyam Mishra case) reiterated the import and rationale of Section 31 and the effect of the amendment made to Section 31 in 2019. Two questions that the Supreme Court had to answer in the Ghanashyam Mishra case were: (i) whether the Central Govt, State Govt or local authority were bound by the resolution plan approved by the NCLT under Section 31?; (ii) whether the Central Govt, State Govt or local authority can initiate proceedings against the corporate debtor in respect of dues not part of the resolution plan approved by the NCLT under Section 31? The Supreme Court answered first question in the affirmative and second question in the negative. 

The Supreme Court elaborated on the various steps in CIRP to underline that a resolution professional prepares an information memorandum to inform the resolution applicants about financials of the corporate debtor. The intent is that the resolution applicants submit resolution plans to satisfy the enlisted financial liabilities and ensure effective running of the corporate debtor. The Supreme Court’s three observations are pertinent: (a) dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Govt, State Govt, or local authority are operational debts, and any entity to whom a statutory dues are owed will be covered by the term ‘creditor’ under Section 31; (b) in the alternative, the Central Govt, State Govt or local authority will be covered by the phrase ‘other stakeholders’ under Section 31; (c) and this observation flowed from the first and second observation: the amendment of 2019 was only clarificatory in nature. The amendment of 2019 to Section 31 only made express what was already implied, i.e., the State and its various statutory authorities were also bound by the resolution plan once it is approved by the NCLT.    

The repeated resistance of statutory authorities such as the Revenue Department to be bound by terms of the resolution plan can – in my view – be attributed to two reasons. Firstly, oversight in submitting the outstanding claims/dues against the corporate debtor during CIRP. Secondly, an erroneous view that the statutory authorities are a distinct and standalone category. Both were understandable in initial few years of the IBC because comprehension about the scope and effect of CIRP was in a nascent stage. But, a continuing insistence, especially by the Revenue Department that outstanding tax dues cannot be reduced or extinguished by resolution plan approved under CIRP even after a decade of the IBC – and several judicial decisions – is inexcusable.  

However, the Essar Steel case and the Ghanashyam Mishra case cumulatively ensured that scope of the clean slate doctrine, interpretation of Section 31, the effect of amendment in 2019 were all clearly established. And these decisions reduced scope for arguments by statutory authorities that they weren’t bound by the resolution plan.          

III. Further Clarifications (and Confusions) 

The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the Essar Steel case, the Ghanashyam Mishra case, as well as the SBI case – while reduced the scope for statutory authorities to pursue their claims after approval of a resolution plan – were not sufficient to clarify binding nature of an approved resolution plan. Lending finality to the resolution plan proved to be a recurrent difficulty. For example, in Electrosteel Limited v Ispat Carrier Private Limited, the Supreme Court had to clarify that an approved resolution plan extinguishes all previous claims including arbitration proceedings. And an arbitral award passed in respect of pre-CIRP claims but after approval of the resolution plan is null. However, in Ujaas Energy Ltd v West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd, the Supreme Court provided a limited relief in respect of pre-CIRP arbitration proceedings against the corporate debtor. The West Bengal Power Development Corporation had filed a counterclaim in respect of arbitration proceedings against the corporate debtor. Subsequently, CIRP was initiated against the corporate debtor. The Supreme Court observed that the resolution plan did not expressly reflect exclusion of the counterclaim and the resolution professional despite being aware of it did not take it into consideration while formulating the resolution plan. Based on facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that while the West Bengal Power Development Corporation cannot pursue its counterclaim as it stands extinguished, it can raise the plea of set-off by way of a defence. While the Supreme Court provided a limited relief based on facts of the case, the Ujaas Energy case exemplified that scope of the clean slate doctrine may require suitable tailoring in some fact situations. And complete clarity may not emerge from statutory provisions alone.  

A crucial site of inconsistency has been tax assessments of the corporate debtor. The Madras High Court in Dishnet Wireless Ltd v Assistant Commission of Income Tax (OSD) (‘Dishnet Wireless case’) observed that proceedings under Section 148, Income Tax Act, 1961 were pending before commencement of CIRP. But appropriate concessions from the Income Tax Department were not included in the final resolution plan. Nor was any notice issued to the Income Tax Department. The Madras High Court held that it was incumbent on the corporate debtor to serve proper notice to the Income Tax Department about CIRP. And thus, permitted continuation of the assessment proceedings even after approval of the resolution plan. But the Delhi High Court in M Tech Developers Pvt Ltd v National Faceless Assessment, Delhi & Anr (‘M Tech Developers case’) in the context of faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B, Income Tax Act, 1961 held that: 

Any effort to assess, reassess or re-compute could tend to lean towards a re-computation of liabilities which otherwise stands freezed by virtue of the Resolution Plan having been approved. (para 8)

The Delhi High Court expressed its disagreement with the Madras High Court’s view expressed in the Dishnet Wireless case. The Delhi High Court in a few other cases, has taken a view that aligns with the M Tech Developers case, but overall the decisions are inconsistent. Militating against certainty that the clean slate doctrine intends to provide to resolution applicants under Section 31.  

Further, in Tata Steel Limited v State of UP, the Allahabad High Court disallowed assessment proceedings after approval of the resolution plan by relying on the Ghanashyam Mishra case. In appeal, the Supreme Court did not disagree with the Allahabad High Court but left open the issue of unjust enrichment. The issue of unjust enrichment, in this context, involves a determination if the tax collected/deducted by the corporate debtor can be made part of the resolution plan. Or will it have to be necessarily remitted to the Revenue Department. This question is pertinent for any indirect taxes collected or any tax deducted at source under the Income Tax Act, 2025 by the corporate debtor. If resolution plan is approved by the NCLT can such taxes collected by the corporate debtor – yet to be remitted to the State – be made part of the resolution plan? Or do they have to be necessarily set aside. The courts have not pronounced the final word on this issue, but my tentative view is that permitting taxes so collected to be part of the resolution plan may lead to unjust enrichment. And it may be advisable to keep such taxes outside the purview of resolution plan.       

IV. IBC Act, 2026 Lays Down the Law – Again 

The IBC Act, 2026 – partially in recognition of the some of the confusions that survived the 2019 amendment to Section 31 – attempts to again ring fence the approved resolution plan and place a statutory stamp on its finality. Section 31(6) – inserted via the IBC Act, 2026 – is worth extracting:

(6) Where the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1),––

(a) unless otherwise provided in the resolution plan, any claim, against the corporate debtor and its assets under any other law for the time being in force, prior to the date of approval, shall be extinguished; and

(b) no proceedings shall be continued or instituted against the corporate debtor or its assets on the basis of such claims, including proceedings for assessment of the claims.

The IBC Act, 2026 also inserts three Explanations to the above sub-section. Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 inserted further clarify that proceedings against promoters or a person in control or management shall be unaffected. Further, if a person had joint liability for payment of debt and such a person makes a payment after approval of the resolution plan then right to be indemnified of that person shall be extinguished. 

In view of the above, three additions to the clean slate doctrine – via the IBC Act, 2026 – are: 

(a) to prevent continuation or initiation of assessment proceedings against the corporate debtor after approval of the resolution plan. This restraint is evidently directed at restraining tax authorities. A plain interpretation suggests that the Delhi High Court’s view in M Tech Developers case has been endorsed. Whether the amendment is sufficient to deter the tax authorities, or a further nuance will be added by judicial interpretation remains to be seen. 

(b) a distinction is made between proceedings against promoters or persons in management or control of the corporate debtor and the corporate debtor itself. It is clarified that the clean slate doctrine is only applicable to claims against the corporate debtor and not to persons who managed or controlled the corporate debtor. This again underlines that the corporate debtor’s liabilities are frozen as per the resolution plan. And even the guarantor’s right of indemnification does not survive approval of the resolution plan.  

(c) in part to resolve the controversy that emerged in the Essar Steel case, prevents the guarantor or any person who has a joint liability to repay the corporate debtor’s debts to seek indemnification. 

In summation, one can make a persuasive case that the amendments to Section 31 in 2019 and 2026 – alongside various judicial precedents cited above – are enough to provide certainty and finality to a resolution plan. And claims not included in the resolution plan are extinguished once it is approved by the NCLT. An overwhelming no. of issues have been addressed by both the amendments of 2019 and 2026, but only tenacity of the tax authorities and complexity of fact situations will provide an answer if the IBC Act, 2026 has succeeded in clarifying scope of the clean slate doctrine.  

V. A Hopeful Future 

Section 31 – based on the amendments in 2019 and by the IBC Act, 2026 – provide an insight about the challenge of drafting provisions for the IBC. Until Section 31 was amended to clearly and expressly state that the statutory authorities were bound by the resolution plan, they refused to extinguish their claims against the corporate debtor. The first evidence of this was in 2019, wherein a specific phrase mentioning Central Govt, State Govt and local authorities had to be inserted in Section 31 to clarify that a resolution plan also binds statutory authorities. This was even though the terms ‘creditors’ and ‘other stakeholders’ clearly swept various statutory authorities under their scope and made them bound by the resolution plan. Amendments introduced by the IBC Act, 2026 are a further step in that direction: making express something that was implied in Section 31. For example, preventing the continuation or initiation of assessment proceedings against the corporate debtor. A restraint that should have been evident even after the amendment in 2019 but had to be spelled out expressly. Thus, if something has been implied, or has required judicial interpretation in Section 31, it has not had the desired effect. Legislative interventions have required scope of the clean slate doctrine to be spelled out expressly. 

The IBC Act, 2026 incorporates this lesson and attempts to provide finality to the resolution plan and spells out scope of the clean slate doctrine in express terms. Hopefully, this legislative intervention should provide sufficient deterrence to the statutory authorities to resist binding nature of an approved resolution plan. And get their pending claims incorporated in the resolution plan itself, in a timely and appropriate fashion. Respect for finality and binding nature of the resolution plan will go a long way in serving and achieving the IBC’s objectives.    

Amendments to the IT Rules, 2026: Effectuating the Tiger Global Case 

by

On 31st March 2026, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’) notified amendment to two sub-rules of Rule 128, The Income Tax Rules, 2026 (‘IT Rules, 2026’). Reactions to the amendments are neatly divided: while a few believe that the amendments are to effectuate the Supreme Court’s decision in The Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and Others v Tiger Global International II Holdings (‘Tiger Global case’), others have observed that the amendments are to dilute its impact. In this article, I suggest that the CBDT has amended the IT Rules, 2026 to codify the ratio of Tiger Global case. Though before I elaborate on my claim, three preliminary things: 

Firstly, in this article I’ve not elaborated either facts or the Supreme Court’s decision in the Tiger Global case; for context, you can read my preliminary comments on the case. 

Secondly, before reading this article you may want to look at the side-by-side comparison of the pre-amendment and post-amendment rules.

Thirdly, Rule 10U, IT Rules, 1962 is pari materia with Rule 128, IT Rules, 2026. Former was the subject of discussion in the Tiger Global case and latter, as its successor, is the subject of recent amendments discussed in this article.      

In this article, my first claim is that amendments to the IT Rules, 2026 have been introduced to eliminate any confusion about the applicability of General Anti-Avoidance Rules (‘GAAR’) to investments made before 1st April 2017. A confusion that was partly caused by use of the phrase ‘without prejudice’ in Rule 10U(2), Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘IT Rules, 1962’). I underline this claim by analyzing relevant portions of the Delhi High Court’s judgment that was overruled by the Supreme Court in the Tiger Global case. My second claim is that amendment to the IT Rules, 2026 brings greater clarity about the Income Tax Department’s (IT Department) stance on the interaction of GAAR with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) benefits. Specifically, the India-Mauritius DTAA. However, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of cut-off date in the Tiger Global case has not been diluted by the amendment. Finally, a crucial piece of the puzzle is still missing. We still do not know judicial meaning of the term ‘arrangement’ – and by extension impermissible avoidance arrangement – despite the Supreme Court relying on it to decide the Tiger Global case. Thus, despite the amendments to the IT Rules, 2026, the crucial test of applying Rule 128 to facts will determine the tax fate of future investments. And the tax fate may, in most cases, hinge on how courts interpret the term arrangement.    

Grandfathering of Investments  

Grandfathering in the IT Rules, 2026 is rooted in grandfathering in the India-Mauritius DTAA. Originally, an import of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA was that capital gains earned by a resident of Mauritius from securities listed in Indian stock exchanges were taxable only in Mauritius, the state of residence. While the vice-versa was also true, it mainly benefited companies incorporated in Mauritius aiming to access the Indian stock market. In 2016, Protocol to the India-Mauritius DTAA amended Article 13 – inserted Article 13(3A) – to provide taxation rights to the source country. Implying that India now had taxation rights on capital gains earned by companies incorporated in Mauritius. But Article 13(3A) was to be only applicable to gains from alienation of shares acquired on or after 1st April 2017. Article 13(3A) thus grandfathered investments and taxability of securities acquired before 1st April 2017 which were to be governed by the original provision. 

Rule 10U(1) of the IT Rules, 1962 intended to achieve the same effect as Article 13(3A) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, but in relation to GAAR. Specifically, Rule 10U(1)(d) provided that GAAR shall not apply to any income that arises, accrues, is received or deemed to accrue, arise or received by any person from transfer of investments made before 1stApril 2017 by such person. However, Rule 10U(2) stated that: 

Without prejudice to the provisions of clause (d) of sub-rule (1), the provisions of Chapter X-A shall apply to any arrangement, irrespective of the date on which it has been entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained from the arrangement on or after the 1st day of April, 2017. (emphasis added)

A combined reading of Rule 10U(1) and 10U(2) suggested that while grandfathering benefit was available for investments, arrangements could not claim the same benefit. But this was not the only possible interpretation. Use of the phrase ‘without prejudice’ created room to suggest that Rule 10(2) did not completely override Rule 10U(1)(d). And it is on this specific point that the Delhi High Court made a few pertinent observations.    

‘Without Prejudice’ in the IT Rules, 1962 

The IT Department argued before the Delhi High Court that ‘without prejudice’ clause implies that Rule 10U(2) overrides Rule 10U(1)(d). Even though an arrangement may have been entered before 1st April 2017, any benefit obtained from it after 1st April 2017 will be subject to GAAR. On the other hand, the counsel for Tiger Global resisted the IT Department’s interpretive approach, and argued that use of ‘without prejudice’ cannot permit interpreting Rule 10(2) inconsistently with Rule 10U(1)(d).  

The Delhi High Court refused to accept the IT Department’s argument and observed that: 

Apart from the above, if the argument of Mr. Srivastava were to be accepted, it would amount to sub-rule (2) immediately taking away what stood saved in the immediately preceding provision, namely, clause (d) of sub-rule (1). If the submission of Mr. Srivastava were to be upheld, it would lead to a wholly irreconcilable conflict between the two aforenoted provisions. However, the arguments addressed along the aforesaid lines are clearly erroneous since it fails to consider the meaning liable to be ascribed to the expression ―without prejudice to…..which appears in sub-rule (2). (para 231) (emphasis added)

The Delhi High Court thus clearly stated that accepting the IT Department’s argument would amount to Rule 10U(2) taking away the benefit conferred by Rule 10U(1)(d). Additionally, the High Court elaborated on the meaning of ‘without prejudice’ by relying on ITO v Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co Ltd. In short, the meaning of ‘without prejudice’ in the context of Rule 10U can be distilled as: (i) Rule 10U(2) cannot be inconsistent to or prejudicial to Rule 10U(1)(d); (ii) while Rule 10U(2) was an independent provision it was subject to Rule 10U(1)(d). 

Apart from the meaning of ‘without prejudice’, the Delhi High Court also invoked the grandfathering benefit introduced via Article 13(3A) of the India-Mauritius DTAA. The High Court observed that the India-Mauritius DTAA had clearly provided safe passage to transactions completed before 1st April 2017. And accepting the IT Department’s argument that Rule 10U(2) overrides the grandfathering benefit provided in Rule 10U(1)(d) would mean:

…a delegatee of the Legislature while framing subordinate legislation being competent to override a treaty provision. A subordinate legislation would thus stand elevated to a status over and above a treaty entered into by two nations in exercise of their sovereign power itself. (para 230)

The Delhi High Court held that permitting secondary legislation to override international treaty obligations is unacceptable. Cumulatively, Article 13(3A) of the India-Mauritius DTAA and meaning of ‘without prejudice’ was used by the Delhi High Court to prevent the IT Department from invoking GAAR against Tiger Global. The High Court’s observations on Rule 10U are an important reference point to understand interpretation of secondary legislation, meaning of the phrase ‘without prejudice’ and how DTAA obligations can and do influence domestic laws. 

Amendments Align with Ratio of the Tiger Global Case

The Supreme Court in the Tiger Global case overruled the Delhi High Court. The IT Department’s stance before the Supreme Court can be summarized as: Rule 10U(1)(a) grants grandfathering benefit only to investments made before 1stApril 2017 and not to arrangements entered before 1st April 2017. Thus, Rule 10U(2) can be applied to deny benefits to arrangements entered before the said date. The Supreme Court agreed with the IT Department and held that: 

Therefore, the prescription of the cut-off date of investment under Rule 10U(1)(d) stands diluted by Rule 10U(2), if any tax benefit is obtained based on such arrangement. The duration of the arrangement is irrelevant. (para 46)

It stands to reason that the Supreme Court interpreted ‘without prejudice’ to have same meaning as ‘notwithstanding’. And, by doing so, clarified that the relationship of Rule 10U(2) with Rule 10U(1)(d) is that the former occupied a higher pedestal. It is to reinforce this legal position that Rule 128(2), IT Rules, 2026 has been amended to state that:

The provisions of Chapter XI shall apply to any arrangement, irrespective of the date on which it has been entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained from the arrangement on or after the 1st April, 2017, except for that income which accrues or arises to, or deemed to accrue or arise to, or is received or deemed to be received by, any person from transfer of such investments which were made before the 1st April, 2017 by such person. (emphasis added) 

There are two inter-related reasons why I suggest that the above amendment is to effectuate ratio of the Tiger Global case. Firstly, the removal of ‘without prejudice’ clause eliminates any confusion as to whether Rule 128(2) overrides Rule 128(1)(d). A confusion that was evident in the Delhi High Court’s judgment which was not in favor of the IT Department. Secondly, Rule 128(2) now uses the word ‘irrespective’. This aligns with the new legislative policy under the IT Act, 2025 to use ‘irrespective’ instead of ‘notwithstanding’. If we tentatively understand that meaning of irrespective is equivalent to notwithstanding, then Rule 128(2) overrides Rule 128(1)(d). And it is the primacy of Rule 128(2) that the IT Department successfully argued before the Supreme Court in the Tiger Global case. 

Thus, I suggest that the IT Rules, 2026 now codify the Tiger Global ratio and not dilute it. Grandfathering benefit is available only to investments, not to arrangements. The date on which the arrangement was entered – before or after 1st April 2017 – is immaterial as GAAR can be invoked against all arrangements. 

No Change in Cut-Off Date

The Supreme Court in the Tiger Global case suggested that gains arising after cut-off date of 1st April 2017 cannot claim the grandfathering benefit. Supreme Court’s observations on Rule 10U(1)(d) were that the cut-off date was for capital gains and not the investments. See, for example, the Supreme Court’s following observation: 

… in the case at hand, though it prima facie appears as if the assessees acquired the capital gains before the cut-off date, i.e., 01.04.2017, it is to be noted that the proposal for transfer of investments commenced only on 09.05.2018. (para 47)

The Supreme Court is clearly concerned that capital gains were not earned by Tiger Global before the 1st April 2017 instead of determining if the investment was made before that date. The Supreme Court also elaborated that the underlying transaction was only completed after the 1st April 2017 to underline that capital gains were only earned after cut-off date. However, grandfathering – under the India-Mauritius DTAA and the IT Rules, 1962 – protected investments made before 1st April 2017 and did not require that income should be earned before the said date. Since Rule 10U(1)(d) and Rule 128(1)(d) contain substantially the same language the Tiger Global ratio is certainly not diluted by amendment to the IT Rules, 2026. Rule 128(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2026 states that GAAR shall not apply to: 

any income accruing or arising to, or deemed to accrue or arise to, or received or deemed to be received by, any person from transfer of such investments which were made before the 1st April, 2017 by such person.”; (emphasis added) 

Rule 128(1)(d) clearly states that investments were made by a person before 1st April 2017 but the income transfer of such investments was realised after the said date, GAAR shall be inapplicable. Rule 10U(1)(d), reproduced below also stated the same: 

any income accruing or arising to, or deemed to accrue arise to, or received or deemed to be received by, any person from transfer of investments made before the first day of April, 2017 by such person.(emphasis added)

The addition of ‘which were’ in the amended rule is hardly a substantive amendment. In the absence of any substantial difference between Rule 10U(1)(d) and Rule 128(1)(d), the Supreme Court’s observations on cut-off date remain the law until their basis is removed by a statutory amendment or subsequent decision(s).  

Meaning of ‘Arrangement’ May Continue to be Contentious 

The above changes though still leave us searching for one crucial answer. The meaning of arrangement. GAAR is applicable only if the arrangement is an impermissible avoidance arrangement. The Supreme Court referred to the statutory definition of an impermissible avoidance arrangement – in Section 96, IT Act, 1961/Section 179, IT Act, 2025 – which states that it is an arrangement whose main purpose is to obtain a tax benefit and is carried out by means or manner which is not ordinarily employed for bona fide purposes. In the Tiger Global case the Supreme Court stated that transaction in question was an impermissible avoidance arrangement because: the transaction entered by Tiger Global was exempt from tax under the Mauritius tax law and it was also seeking exemption under the Indian income tax law. Thereby presenting a strong case for the IT Department to deny the benefit under the India-Mauritius DTAA as such an arrangement is impermissible. 

The Supreme Court made no precise observation as to which aspect of the transaction or corporate structure/arrangement adopted by Tiger Global amounts to an impermissible avoidance arrangement. The Supreme Court’s above observations suggest that to claim tax benefit under a DTAA, the taxpayer must pay tax in at least one of the contracting states. And since the case involved an indirect transfer, the Supreme Court’s observations can be applied to similar such transfers in the future. But, overall, specificity as to what constitutes an impermissible avoidance arrangement is missing in the Tiger Global case. Largely, we have the statutory definition of an impermissible avoidance arrangement to rely on for future cases, but the exact scope may emerge through future decisions and as new fact situations require judicial attention. 

Overall, though amendments to the IT Rules, 2026 have ensured that any confusion that could emerge from interpretation of the ‘without prejudice’ clause is removed. And the IT Department is intent on effectuating ratio of the Tiger Global case in so far as application of GAAR in relation to grandfathering benefit is concerned. In short, arrangements entered before 1st April 2017 will be subject to GAAR, only investments can claim the grandfathering benefit. But distinguishing one from the other will require strenuous efforts and contentious interpretations.      

PS: Amendments to the IT Rules, 2026 were uploaded via a notification on the IT Department’s website without any accompanying explanation. Taxpayers were left to their own devices to decode rationale and implication of the amendment. Perhaps the IT Department could have made some effort in communicating its intent.   

Supreme Courts Uses Tax Sovereignty to Hunt Tiger Global

by

The Supreme Court recently handed a significant legal victory to the Income Tax Department (‘Revenue’) in The Authority for Advance Rulings (Income-Tax) & Ors v Tiger Global International III Holdings (‘Tiger Global case’). And in the process created a significant shift in our understanding of income tax jurisprudence and tax treaty obligations. But, before we get to what the Supreme Court held, a short prologue.  

Prologue: Underlying Procedural Knot

Justice Mahadevan, in his leading opinion, concluded that the Revenue has proved that transactions in ‘the instant case are impermissible tax-avoidance arrangements, and the evidence prima facie establishes that they do not qualify as lawful.’ (para 50) (emphasis added)  

The above conclusion – lacking adequate basis – is crucial because of procedural backdrop of the case. Tiger Global companies (‘Tiger Global’) had filed an application before Authority for Advance Ruling (‘AAR’) seeking clarity on their obligation to withhold taxes. But, AAR rejected Tiger Global’s application on the ground that its arrangement was for avoidance of tax in India. If a transaction is ‘designed prima facie for the avoidance of income tax’, then AAR is obligated to reject the application under proviso (iii) to Section 245R(2). AAR found the above provision to be ‘squarely applicable’ to the case and rejected the application. The core finding of AAR was that Tiger Global incorporated in Mauritius lacked economic substance and its head and brain were located in the United States of America. Tiger Global, AAR noted, were ‘conduits’ for investments in Singapore and Mauritius.   

Tiger Global impugned AAR’s ruling before the Delhi High Court (‘High Court’). The Revenue contended that AAR had only given a preliminary opinion on chargeability to tax and there was no justification for the High Court to exercise judicial review. The High Court reasoned that reports of both Commissioner of Income Tax and AAR had ‘trappings of finality’ and ‘evident element of resolute decisiveness’. The High Court’s view was fortified by AAR’s observations on treaty eligibility and on chargeability of capital gains. The High Court, convinced that AAR had made substantial findings and not expressed a prima facie view, pronounced a detailed decision on merits. The High Court held that Tiger Global was not liable to tax in India and could avail treaty benefits under the India-Mauritius tax treaty.     

In appeal against the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court has pronounced a detailed judgment but not gone into merits of the case. A fact that is difficult to come terms with once you read the judgment. Nonetheless, as per the Supreme Court the core question before it was: whether AAR was right in rejecting applications for advance rulings on grounds of maintainability and whether enquiry can be made if capital gains is chargeable.

In view of the above procedural history, the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the Revenue has succeeded in proving that ‘prima facie’ Tiger Global’s arrangements are unlawful is vital. Since the Supreme Court Revenue has ruled in favor of the Revenue, the assessment of Tiger Global will materialize. Tiger Global, if it chooses, can lend quietus to the issue and pay tax or challenge the imminent assessment orders and indulge in another round of legal bout with the Revenue. That is all in the untold future, until then we have the Supreme Court’s judgment to contend with.   

Introduction

Supreme Court’s judgment can be analyzed on various axes: international tax law-domestic law dynamic, application of judicial anti-avoidance rule, prospective and retrospective applicability of amendments, trajectory of India-Mauritius tax treaty, eligibility for tax treaty benefits, relevance of secondary legislation such as circulars issued by the Revenue and norms of judicial propriety. Two crucial threads of the case – in my view – are the relevance of tax residency certificate (‘TRC’) and applicability of GAAR.

In brief, Supreme Court has held that TRC is necessary but not a sufficient condition to claim tax treaty benefits. Tiger Global possessing TRC of Mauritius does not preclude the Revenue from applying the substance over form test and deny assessee tax treaty benefits. In this article, I forsake an exhaustive commentary on the case, to make two narrow claims: 

First, the Supreme Court in holding that TRC is a necessary but not sufficient condition for claiming tax treaty benefits plays fast and lose with strict interpretation of Section 90(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act, 1961’) and instead places greater reliance on legislative history and legislative intent while ignoring binding judicial precedents.

Second, I suggest that Tiger Global case unsettles well-entrenched axioms in income tax and tax treaty landscape. The most significant rupture is of the doctrine that tax treaties override domestic law if the former are more beneficial to the assessee. The Supreme Court had no qualms in stating that GAAR contained in a domestic law can be used to deny tax treaty benefits. An observation that appears unblemished, if we look at the underlying provision(s), but holds wider consequences for India’s tax treaty obligations.   

I conclude that the sub-par reasoning of the Supreme Court is attributable to its half-baked idea of tax sovereignty. The concurring opinion of Justice Pardiwala invokes tax sovereignty expressly while the leading opinion of Justice Mahadevan relies on it impliedly. In Tiger Global case, Indian Supreme Court has couched tax sovereignty in legal sophistry, without articulating it in any meaningful manner. In fact, the Supreme Court has exhibited a shallow view of international law – and by extension tax treaty – obligations by viewing them as dispensable and permitted unilateral actions by the Revenue in the name of tax sovereignty.     

I make the above claims fully cognizant of the fact that the Supreme Court’s judgment is, technically, not on merits of the case. But the Supreme Court’s observations are sufficiently detailed and such judicial observations deserve a scrutiny irrespective of narrowing framing of the issue. 

Factual Background 

The brief facts of the case are that Tiger Global acquired shares in Flipkart Singapore before 1 April 2017. The value of shares of Flipkart Singapore was primarily due to the assets the company held in India. In simpler terms, Tiger Global held some shares in holding company of Flipkart – Flipkart Singapore – which in turn controlled subsidiary Indian companies. And the value of shares of Flipkart Singapore was derived from the business and assets owned by its Indian subsidiaries. In August 2018, Tiger Global sold the shares as part of the larger restructuring wherein Walmart acquired majority shareholding in Flipkart Singapore. 

The sale of shares was an ‘indirect transfer’ because sale of shares of Flipkart Singapore indirectly transferred control of Flipkart’s Indian companies and business to Walmart. The sale, as per the Revenue was chargeable to tax under IT Act, 1961. Since the value of shares in Flipkart Singapore was primarily due to the assets it held in India, the legal fiction under Explanation 5, Section 9 was applicable as it deems such shares as located in India. Tiger Global contended that it was a resident of Mauritius, it had acquired the shares before 1 April 2017, and as per the India-Mauritius tax treaty it was liable to pay tax only in Mauritius.    

Tiger Global was riding on two major factors: firstly, that under the India-Mauritius treaty all investments made by residents of Mauritius before 1 April 2017 were grandfathered and were liable to tax only in Mauritius; secondly, if an assessee is resident of India’s tax treaty partner the IT Act, 1961 will only apply if it is more beneficial to the assessee. Thus, as per Tiger Global even if the transaction was liable to tax under Section 9, IT Act, 1961 the India-Mauritius tax treaty exempted it from tax in India and the treaty should override the statute. Widely held views amongst lawyers backed the former claim, decades of jurisprudence the latter.  

The Supreme Court rejected the arguments of Tiger Global and wrote a judgment premised on fanciful ideas of tax sovereignty and autonomy.    

Tax Residency Certificate: Necessary but not Sufficient  

In April 2000, the Revenue had issued Circular No. 789 to address the anxieties about tax liabilities of FIIs and other investment funds which operated from Mauritius and were incorporated there. The relevant portion of the Circular stated that: 

It is hereby clarified that wherever a Certificate of Residence is issued by the Mauritian Authorities, such Certificate will constitute sufficient evidence for accepting the status of residence as well as beneficial ownership for applying the DTAC accordingly. (emphasis added)

In October 2003, the validity of Circular No. 789 was upheld by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr. The Supreme Court in upholding the Revenue’s power to issue Circular No. 789 endorsed its contents and the Revenue’s interpretation of the India-Mauritius tax treaty. In Tiger Global case, the Supreme Court instead of accepting this unequivocal position of law and engaging with it a meaningful manner, pursued the tangent of legislative history and amendment of Section 90 to conclude that TRC is not sufficient evidence of residence. The legislative history was the amendments made to IT Act, 1961 in 2012 and 2013 to primarily undo the effect of Supreme Court’s judgment in the Vodafone case.    

Finance Act, 2012 amended Section 90(4), IT Act, 1961 to state that an assessee is not entitled to claim relief under a tax treaty unless he obtains a certificate of being residence. In 2013, Finance Bill, 2013 proposed to introduce Section 90(5) in IT Act, 1961 to state that: 

The certificate of being a resident in a country outside India or specified territory outside India, as the case may be, referred to in sub-section (4), shall be necessary but not a sufficient condition for claiming any relief under the agreement referred to therein.

Due to backlash and concerns about the effect of proposed sub-section(5) on the Mauritius route, Finance Act, 2013 dropped the above version and instead introduced the current Section 90(5) which states that an assessee referred to in sub-section(4) shall also provide ‘such other documents and information’ as may be required.

Presuming the legislative history of Section 90 is relevant to adjudicate the issue in Tiger Global case, it is possible to derive two possible views from the above developments. One, adopted by the Delhi High Court was that:

issuance of a TRC constitutes a mechanism adopted by the Contracting States  themselves so as to dispel any speculation with respect to the fiscal residence of an entity. It therefore can neither be cursorily ignored nor would the Revenue be justified in doubting the presumption of validity which stands attached to that certificate bearing in mind the position taken by the Union itself of it constituting ―sufficient evidence‖ of lawful and bona fide residence. (para 199)

The High Court cited the Vodafone case to note that the Revenue’s power to investigate despite a TRC was confined only to cases of tax fraud, sham transactions or where an entity has no vestige of economic substance. 

The Supreme Court pointed the needle in other direction. The Supreme Court referred to the Explanatory Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2012 to observe that intent of amending Section 90(4) was that TRC is necessary but not sufficient evidence of residence. Reliance on supporting sources instead of interpreting the provisions is a curious approach and even the High Court traversed this path for no clear reason. 

The Supreme Court noted that while the legal position – that TRC is necessary but not sufficient – could not be codified due to withdrawal of previous version of Section 90(5), introduction of current version of Section 90(5) still introduced ambiguity if TRC was sufficient. But the Finance Ministry issued a clarification in 2013 that the Revenue ‘will not go behind the TRC’ and Circular No. 789 continues to be in force. And yet, the Supreme Court’s conclusion seems at odds with the clarification issued by the Finance Ministry. The Supreme Court concluded that: 

Section 90(4) of the Act only speaks of the TRC as an “eligibility condition”. It does not state that a TRC is “sufficient” evidence of residency, which is a slightly higher threshold. The TRC is not binding on any statutory authority or Court unless the authority or Court enquires into it and comes to its own independent conclusion. The TRC relied upon by the applicant is non- decisive, ambiguous and ambulatory, merely recording futuristic assertions without any independent verification. Thus, the TRC lacks the qualities of a binding order issued by an authority. (para 37)

The legislative intent in amending Section 90(4) was that TRC is necessary but not sufficient to claim treaty benefits. But such an unambiguous position never found its way in the statute. Instead, the Revenue to clarify the import of amendments to Section 90 stated – via the Finance Ministry – that Circular No. 789 is still in force. But the Supreme Court, relied on legislative intent and observed that TRC has ‘limited evidentiary value’ because of the statutory amendments that govern the field. Failing to note that the Finance Ministry issued its clarification in March 2013 – after the amendments.  

The import and of Section 90(5) was understood by the Supreme Court in following words: 

Section 90(5) mandated that the assessee shall also provide such other documents and information, implying that the existence of a TRC alone need not be treated as sufficient to avoid taxation under the domestic law. (para 12.24) (emphasis added)

Even if legislative history is relevant, the failure to engage with a binding judicial precedent – Azadi Bachao Andolan case – is indefensible. Supreme Court’s refuge was that amendments to IT Act, 1961 have changed the law. In stating so, it refused to acknowledge jurisprudence that High Courts have developed jurisprudence on TRC even after the amendments and the judicial view has largely been consistent with Azadi Bachao Andolan case. Perhaps engagement with the reasoning of High Court judgments and expressing better reasons for disagreement could have lent some credibility and weight to Supreme Court’s conclusions. And as the Revenue itself argued, Vodafone was not a treaty case, it involved interpretation of statutory provisions. Amendments to IT Act, 1961 in 2012 and 2013 to undo Vodafone cannot be used to bypass treaty obligations.  

The non-engagement with Azadi Bachao is what led Supreme Court to say that since the object of a tax treaty is to prevent double taxation, ‘for the treaty to be applicable, the assessee must prove that the transaction is taxable in its State of residence.’ (para 19) How damaging is this statement, we will only know in due time. For now, it suffices to say that it flies in the face of settled law on treaty interpretation that to avail a treaty benefit, a resident must only be liable to tax in another jurisdiction. Liability to tax cannot be equated to actual payment of tax. 

Also, interpreting tax statutes based on implication is a rare approach. Courts, including the Indian Supreme Court, have repeatedly exhorted that tax statutes need to be interpreted strictly. Adherence to strict interpretation is a sine qua non that courts only abandon in the face of ambiguity in a provision. In Tiger Global case, the Supreme Court seemed comfortable relying on legislative intent – revealed by Explanatory Memorandum – and dismissing binding judicial precedents and valid circulars by pointing at statutory amendments. 

Cumulatively, Supreme Court’s observations on TRC fall foul of strict interpretation of tax laws, disrespect judicial precedents, allow the Revenue to conveniently sidestep its own binding circulars and bring into question legitimacy of documents issued by India’s treaty partners. A stirred cocktail of tax misgovernance.   

Tax Treaty Overrides Domestic Law, GAAR is an Exemption  

The Revenue’s argument was that TRC only constitutes prima facie evidence of residence and cannot override substance over form. Even if TRC was not considered as sufficient, the Revenue had to rely on anti-tax abuse rules to claim that Tiger Global was a sham or a conduit. But the Limitation of Benefits clause (‘LOB clause’) in the India-Mauritius treaty was inapplicable to the transaction. So? GAAR came to the rescue. But the Supreme Court had to jump a few interpretive hoops to allow the Revenue to apply GAAR.  

Section 90(2) states that where the Union has entered a tax treaty with another State or jurisdiction that provisions of IT Act, 1961 shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to the assessee. The import of this provision is that if a tax treaty is more beneficial it shall apply even if it is at variance with the IT Act, 1961. In successive decisions courts have upheld the above legal position and held that charge of income tax and determination of scope of income under sections 4 and 5 of IT Act, 1961 are subject to tax treaties. An uncontroversial position until 2012.   

In 2012, the Finance Act added sub-section (2A) to section 90 which states that: 

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the provisions of Chapter X-A of the Act shall apply to the assessee even if such provisions are not beneficial to him.

Chapter X-A contains provisions relating to General Anti-Avoidance Rule, also introduced via the Finance Act, 2012. Section 90(2A) empowers the Revenue to apply a statutory anti-tax abuse rule to assessees who are covered by tax treaties. The exception in subsection (2A) then ensures that if the LOB clause of a tax treaty is not sufficient, GAAR can be invoked to address tax avoidance strategies.  

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the above provision, interpreted it strictly and noted that GAAR can apply to assessees covered by tax treaties. On the touchstone of strict interpretation, the Supreme Court was right in observing that GAAR can apply to assessees covered by tax treaties. But Supreme Court’s failure to engage to engage with decades of judicial precedents stating that domestic tax law cannot override tax treaties remains a fatal flaw of the judgment. Unless tax treaty provides that GAAR can apply in the absence/insufficiency of a LOB clause, Section 90(2A) amounts to a unilateral amendment of tax treaties. And the Supreme Court seems to have endorsed it.   

The other hurdle was grandfathering. Rule 10U(1)(d), Income Tax Rules, 1962 states that Chapter X-A containing GAAR shall not apply to income accrued or arisen from investments made before 1 April 2017. Tiger Global argued against application of GAAR citing the grandfathering contemplated in the domestic provisions. But the Revenue relied on Rule 10U(2) which states that: 

Without prejudice to the provisions of clause (d) of sub-rule (1), the provisions of Chapter X-A shall apply to any arrangement, irrespective of the date on which it has been entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained from the arrangement on or after the 55[1st day of April, 2017]. (emphasis added) 

Rule 10U(2), on first glance, negates the grandfathering contemplated by Rule 10U(1)(d). The Revenue made a similar argument. The High Court had refused to interpret ‘without prejudice’ to mean that GAAR could be applied to income from arrangements entered before 1 April 2017. The High Court noted that it should ‘eschew from’ interpreting a provision in a domestic statute that conflicts with a treaty provision. And concluded that accepting the Revenue’s argument would mean:

A subordinate legislation would thus stand elevated to a status over and above a treaty entered into by two nations in exercise of their sovereign power itself. (para 230)

The Supreme Court did not have similar qualms  as the High Court and accepted the fine distinction made by the Revenue. The distinction was that Rule 10U(1)(d) only grandfathered investments, while Rule 10U(2) uses the word ‘arrangement’ and thus the grandfathering benefit can only extend to investments and not tax avoidance arrangements, even if the latter were entered into before 1 April 2017. A strict interpretation of both Rules – supported by observations of the Shome Committee – will place Supreme Court’s conclusion in a defensible category. But what does it mean for India’s tax treaty obligations?   

A two-pronged thorn emerges: 

First, tax treaty override over domestic law will no longer be exhaustive by virtue of Section 90(2); Revenue can apply GAAR if LOB clause of tax treaty is insufficient by invoking Section 90(2A) read with Rule 10U. Domestic law, specifically, GAAR will act as a backstop to prevent tax avoidance. A legal position that the Supreme Court has accepted in Tiger Global case but flies in the face of decades of jurisprudence on income tax law and tax treaty interpretation.  

Second, relevant provisions of the India-Mauritius tax treaty refer to ‘gains’ not to investments or arrangements. Can domestic laws – including secondary legislation – now determine the scope of taxability and allocation of rights agreed upon tax treaties? The High Court said a categorical no, the Supreme Court said yes. The Supreme Court took refuge in the fact that amendments of IT Act, 1961  – specifically Section 90 – had changed legal landscape. Domestic landscape, yes. Treaty obligations, not. But, I guess, we are a sovereign country that can act independently and if need be in flagrant disregard of our treaty obligations.   

Conclusion

Tiger Global case is an attempt by Indian Supreme Court to flex tax sovereignty, without truly understanding it. The concurring opinion of Justice Pardiwala exemplifies this lack of understanding. He lauds India’s unilateral revocation of Bilateral Investment Treaties in 2016 and adds that an assertion of tax sovereignty is the power to make unilateral moves. What is being termed as tax sovereignty is polite speak for reneging on tax treaty commitments if revenue demands are not accepted unconditionally. Such prescriptions appeal to baser instincts of the State and do not aspire to tax governance founded on rule of law. Justice Pardiwala perfunctorily adds that India should negotiate tax treaties by including certain safeguards such as: GAAR should override tax treaty benefits. Another example of how he misunderstands manifestation of tax sovereignty. Is the assumption here that India’s treaty partners will simply agree to such clauses and not extract similar concessions for themselves. Justice Pardiwala not only exceeds his remit by providing policy prescriptions but provides them based on a shallow understanding of treaty dynamics and negotiations.    

To book end this article, Justice Mahadevan’s conclusion cited at the beginning where he concludes that the transactions of Tiger Global are impermissible anti-avoidance arrangements is based on facts that seem only privy to him and the Revenue. There is nothing in both the leading opinion and the concurring opinion to even provide a glimpse of reasons as to why the transactions and arrangements are impermissible anti-avoidance arrangements. If only Supreme Court judgments on tax issues were to provide us less tax history lessons, fewer policy prescriptions and substitute them with better reasoning, sound analysis of facts and accurate application of law.   

Taxation of ESOP-Related Compensation: Reviewing the Flipkart Cases

by

Introduction 

In April 2023, the Board of Flipkart Private Limited (‘FPS’), Singapore decided to pay a one-time voluntary compensation – 43.67 US dollars per stock option – to all the option grantees of its Employee Stock Options (‘ESOPs’). FPS paid the compensation because the value of its ESOPs had reduced after divestment of its stake in PhonePe, a digital payments company. Under the Flipkart Stock Option Scheme of 2012, FPS was under no obligation to compensate option grantees for loss in the value of its ESOPs. Nor did the option grantees have a right to compensation for FPS’s failure to protect the value of its ESOPs. However, FPS exercised its discretion and decided to compensate all the option grantees on a pro rata basis. 

The question from a tax standpoint was: whether the option grantees are liable to pay tax on the one-time voluntary compensation paid by FPS? In the absence of a clear charging provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act, 1961) vis-à-vis such a compensation, three High Courts have arrived at two different answers. The Delhi High Court in Sanjay Baweja v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, 77(1), Delhi & Anrand the Karnataka High Court in Manjeet Singh Chawla v Deputy Commissioner of TDS Ward-(1)(2), Bangalore have answered in favor of the option grantees, while the Madras High Court in Nishithkumar Mukeshkumar Mehta v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle 2(1), has held in favor of the Income Tax Department. In all three cases, the options had vested in favor of the option grantees, but they had not exercised the options on the date of receiving the compensation. A fact which is crucial to understand all three decisions.    

There were two possible ways the Income Tax Department tried to shoehorn the compensation as income under the IT Act, 1961: first, by classifying the compensation as a perquisite under Section 17(2)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961; second, by categorizing the compensation as capital gains under Section 45 of the IT Act, 1961. This article suggests that – contrary to the Income Tax Department’s claims – the compensation paid by FPS is not taxable either as a perquisite or as capital gains under existing provisions of the IT Act, 1961. 

The two arguments against levy of income tax on the compensation are: 

first, Section 17(2)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 only envisages the difference in exercise price and fair market value of the options as a taxable perquisite. A one-time voluntary compensation paid to compensate for loss in value of ESOPs is not within the purview of Section 17(2)(vi). 

second, while the one-time compensation paid by FPS is appropriately categorized as a capital receipt, in the absence of transfer of the underlying capital asset – stocks- it cannot be considered as capital gains under the IT Act, 1961. And even if one assumes that the compensation is capital gains, in the absence of a corresponding computation provision for such payments, the attempt to levy tax on such a compensation should fail.   

Scope of Perquisite under Section 17(2)(vi) 

Section 17(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act, 1961’) defines ‘perquisite’ to include the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares allotted or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former employer, free of cost or at a concessional rate to the assessee. Explanation (c) to the above sub-clause adds that: 

the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or sweat equity shares, as the case may be, on the date on which the option is exercised by the assessee as reduced by the amount actually paid by, or recovered from, the assessee in respect of such security or shares;

Section 17(2)(vi) read with Explanation (c) makes ESOPs taxable in the hands of an assessee as a perquisite. And difference in the fair market value of ESOPs and the cost paid by the assessee for ESOPs is treated as a perquisite on which income tax is payable. But the difference between two prices is only relevant if the option grantee exercises the option because the difference is calculated in reference to the ‘date on which the option is exercised by the assessee.’ One can then plausibly argue that it is the exercise of stock options that triggers an option grantee’s income tax liability under Section 17(2)(vi). 

The Madras High Court though held that the compensation received by an option grantee from FPS was taxable under Section 17(2)(vi) since the former ‘continues to retain all the ESOPs even after the receipt of compensation’. This conclusion has no basis in Section 17(2)(vi) since retention or otherwise of vested ESOPs is irrelevant to their taxability. It is the exercise of options that is material in determining the tax liability. The Madras High Court added another problematic observation to its above conclusion, i.e., computation of tax payable on the compensation. Section 17(2)(vi) does not provide for a computation mechanism for a voluntary compensation paid in respect of ESOPs. In this respect, the Madras High Court created its own computation mechanism by observing that:

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

Again, there is nothing in Section 17(2)(vi) that supports the above observation. Section 17(2)(vi) does envisage an option grantee receiving ESOPs free of cost. And in that case, the import of Explanation(c) would be that since ‘the amount actually paid’ by the option grantee is nil, the fair market value of ESOP would be computed as the taxable perquisite, without any deduction of cost. The foundational condition of exercise of options though must still be satisfied. But the Madras High Court overlooked the condition of exercise of options. Overall, the Madras High Court’s observations on taxability and computation of tax on the compensation, via a liberal reading of Section 17(2)(vi), are suspect.

On the other hand, by adopting a comparatively more strict and reasonable interpretation of Section 17(2)(vi), the Delhi High Court noted that ‘a literal understanding’ of the provision would reveal that the value of specified securities or sweat equity shares is dependent on exercise of options. And that for an income to be included as a ‘perquisite’ under Section 17(2)(vi), it is essential that the option grantee exercises the options. In the absence of exercise of options, the benefits derived in the form of a one-time voluntary compensation were not taxable as a perquisite under Section 17(2)(vi). The Karnataka High Court in a similar vein added since the assessee had not exercised the stock options the voluntary compensation paid by FPS was not taxable under Section 17(2)(vi) a perquisite. The Karnataka High Court stated that in the impugned scenario ‘a computational impossibility’ arises since taxability under Section 17(2)(vi) only arises when the option grantee exercises the option.  

Charge and Computation of Capital Gains 

Section 45 of the IT Act, 1961 states that any profits or gains arising from transfer of a capital asset shall be chargeable to income tax under the head “capital gains”. To levy a charge of tax under this provision, there must be transfer of a capital asset from which a profit or gain is made by the asssesse. None of the conditions specified in Section 45 were satisfied in the impugned scenario. The arguments against equating the one-time voluntary compensation to capital gains are manifold. 

To begin with, the option grantees stated that since they had not exercised their stock options at the time of receipt of compensation, there was no transfer of the underlying capital asset, i.e. the stocks. An essential ingredient of Section 45 was not fulfilled and thus the assertion that the compensation amounted to capital gains must fail. 

Another reason for not considering the compensation as capital gains was that in the absence of exercise of stock options, the option grantees had paid no cost for acquiring them. The cost of acquisition, essential to compute capital gains, could not be determined. Section 48 of the IT Act, 1961 contains details on how to compute income chargeable to tax under the head of capital gains. But, Section 48 of the IT Act, 1961 does not specify how to compute capital gains tax for a voluntary compensation received by an option grantee; specifically, when the option grantee has not exercised options at the time of receiving a voluntary compensation in relation to ESOPs. 

Even if one assumes there was transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of Section 45 of the IT Act, 1961 the lack of a corresponding computation mechanism would mean that the charge of tax must fail. The Karnataka High Court endorsed a well-established dictum of law on this issue, i.e., a charging provision and computation provision constitute an integrated code. The Karnataka High Court relied on Mathuram Aggarwal v State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Supreme Court has held that if any of the three elements: the subject of tax, the person liable to pay tax and rate of tax are ambiguous, there is no tax under the law. The Karnataka High Court’s reasoning that in the absence of a computation mechanism – for the compensation received by the option grantees – the charge of tax fails is based on a correct reading of the tax statute and aligns with the Supreme Court’s unchallenged view.

Finally, the option grantees argued that the compensation is a capital receipt, and the levy of income tax must fail. The Income Tax Department tried to argue that the compensation is a revenue receipt on the ground that FPS intended to deduct tax at source implying that the compensation is taxable under the IT Act, 1961. The Delhi High Court correctly negatived this assertion by the Income Tax Department and observed that: 

It is pertinent to note that the manner or nature of payment, as comprehensible by the deductor, would not determine the taxability of such transaction. It is the quality of payment that determines its character and not the mode of payment. Unless the charging Section of the Act elucidates any monetary receipt as chargeable to tax, the Revenue cannot proceed to charge such receipt as revenue receipt and that too on the basis of the manner or nature of payment, as comprehensible by the deductor.

The Delhi High Court added that the compensation paid by FPS to the option grantees was a one-time voluntary payment not linked to employment or business of the latter, and neither did it arise from a statutory or contractual obligation and correctly categorized it as a capital receipt. The Delhi High Court cited various precedents to emphaise on the voluntary nature of the payment to conclude that the compensation paid by FPS was a capital receipt. The Delhi High Court’s conclusion on the compensation being a capital receipt was in the context of Section 17(2)(vi). However, the Delhi High Court’s above observation was partially applicable to rebut the argument of capital gains as well. To put it succinctly, a capital receipt is subject to tax only if there is an express charging provision under the relevant income tax statute, there is a corresponding computation provision, and the capital receipt is included in the definition of income. Else, a capital receipt remains outside the purview of an income tax statute. In the impugned case, the lack of a specific computation provision for such compensation establishes that it is a capital receipt that is not charged to tax under the IT Act, 1961. The Karnataka High Court went a step ahead and pointedly held that the compensation was a capital receipt not chargeable to income tax under Section 45. And that a capital receipt which cannot be taxed under Section 45, cannot be taxed under any other head of income. And in stating so, the Karnataka High Court refused to categorize the compensation under the head of ‘salaries’, ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources.’      

Conclusion  

Overall, the Delhi and Karnataka High Court’s approach to the impugned issue of taxability of a one-time compensation seems to be on much sounder footing. The latter copiously cited the former judgment and endorsed it unqualifiedly while adding its own similar interpretation. The reason that the Madras High Court’s judgment is unpersuasive is because it at odds with some of the fundamental interpretive tools used in tax law. For example, the position under tax law is clear and unimpeached: an income cannot be subjected to tax in the absence of an express charging provision. The charge of tax also fails in the absence of a corresponding computation mechanism. The former only establishes that the tax is payable, quantifying the amount payable via a computation provision is equally vital. Absence of either proves fatal to the charge. The Madras High Court by holding that the one-time voluntary compensation paid by FPS is taxable under Section 17(2)(vi), and that the entire sum received as compensation is taxable as perquisite, contradicts both the above well-accepted positions in tax law. It is not the remit of courts to interpret charging provisions liberally or prescribe computation mechanisms. The Madras High Court’s interpretive approach was an unwelcome intervention in adjudication of tax disputes. The Delhi and Karnataka High Court judgments – based on strict interpretation and defensible reasoning – hopefully will be a persuasive source for any future disputes that may arise on tax disputes of similar nature. 

Service Charge, its Similarity with Tax, and a ‘Double Whammy’ for Consumers: Some Thoughts

by

Introduction 

The Delhi High Court (‘High Court’) recently ruled that levy of mandatory service charge by restaurants violates customer rights. The High Court’s reasoning, anchored in consumer protection laws, termed a mandatory service charge as deceptive and misleading for consumers. The High Court also made a few casual references to tax laws. For example, the High Court took umbrage at the nomenclature of ‘service charge’ and its potential to confuse customers with a tax levied by the Government. There is merit to the High Court’s observation, but service charge and tax have a deeper connection that is only superficially referred to in the judgment. In this article, I try to scratch the surface a bit deeper.  

I elaborate on two potential misgivings about service charge that the High Court’s judgment may entrench: 

First, the High Court noted that addition of service charge below the cost of food followed by levy of GST in the bill, created a ‘double whammy’ for the customers. I argue that restaurants by adding service charge before calculating GST were adhering to the mandate under CGST Act, 2017. In complying with GST laws, restaurants seem to have tripped over the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Unless there is a change in any of the two laws, restaurants are now faced with the challenge of squaring a circle.  

Second, the High Court’s view that service charge can be confused for a tax prompted it to recommend that a change in nomenclature may be worth exploring. The High Court recommended that the Central Consumer Protection Authority (‘CCPA’) can permit restaurants to levy ‘tip’, ‘gratuity’, or ‘fund’ on a voluntary basis. The nomenclature issue was two-fold: first, service charge per being mistaken for a tax by customers; second, use of abbreviations by restaurants – such as ‘charge’, ‘VSC’, ‘SER’ – which further misled the customers if the levy was a mandatory levy by the State or restaurants. I query whether ‘confusion’ is the touchstone to determine if a levy by private entity should be disallowed or is its perceived mandatory nature?  

GST on Food Cost + Service Charge 

The High Court noted in its judgment that: 

Moreover, when the bills of establishments are generated, it is noticed that the service charge is added right below the total amount of the cost of the food, followed by GST and taxes. For any consumer who does not examine the bill thoroughly, the impression given is that the service charge is a component of tax; (para 122)

The High Court’s above observation hints at two things: 

one, the restaurants are trying to inflate the cost of food bill by calculating GST on the cumulative of food bill and service charge;  

second, the mention of service charge just before GST creates a confusion that the former is a tax. 

Let me examine the first implication in this section.  

Section 15(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 states that the value of supply of goods or services or both shall include:

incidental expenses, including commission and packing, charged by the supplier to the recipient of a supply and any amount charged for anything done by the supplier in respect of the supply of goods or services or both at the time of, or before delivery of goods or supply of services; (emphasis added)

Thus, if a restaurant was adding service charge to the food bill before computing GST, it was adhering to the mandate of GST law and not trying to ‘inflate’ the bill on its own accord. Once a restaurant decides to levy any additional charge including packing charges, etc., then as per Section 15(2)(c) it needs to be added to the total cost in a bill before computing GST. Adding all the ancillary costs ensures that the base value for calculating GST is as high as possible. Enhancing underlying value of the supply is a statutory policy aimed to enhance revenue collections, and leaves business entities such as restaurants no option to exclude charges such as service charge from the cost. One could question the statutory policy, but I doubt restaurants at fault for adding service charge to the food cost before computing GST.   

In adding the service charge to food cost, as per the mandate of CGST Act, 2017, restaurants though seem to have tripped over the consumer protection law. How to ensure compliance with both? The High Court has offered a suggestion that service charge could be renamed to something that cannot be confused with a tax, though its payment should remain voluntary.    

Service Charge Can be Confused With Tax 

The High Court, as noted above, was concerned about mention of service charge just above GST in the restaurant bill and its potential to confuse customers former with a tax. The High Court also noted that:     

In some cases, service charge is being confused with service tax or a mandatory tax imposed by the government. In fact, for the consumers, the collection of service charge is proving to be a double whammy i.e., they are forced to pay service tax and GST on the service charge as well. This position cannot be ignored by the Court. (para 123)

Latter part of the High Court’s judgment, of course, is a bit inaccurate. Service tax has been subsumed by GST since July 2017. Also, payment of GST on service charge is not a ‘double whammy’ as the High Court observes. It is, as noted above, payment of GST as per statutory mandate. It is simply, a ‘whammy’ as inclusion of service charge in value of supply though prejudices the taxpayer, is not qualitatively dissimilar from inclusion of any charges that suppliers compulsorily collect from their recipients.  

The first part of the observation points out that service charge can be confused with a tax by consumers who may think they have no option but to pay it, may be misled into paying a private compulsory levy. The misleading part is on two counts, as per the High Court. 

First, the mention of service charge just above GST. This can be corrected by tinkering billing software and doesn’t seem like a substantive issue that it beyond correction. One could perhaps mandate restaurants to specifically mention in the bill itself that service charge is discretionary and not a levy by the State.    

Second, is the phrase ‘service charge’ itself, which gives consumers the impression that it is a tax. But will a service charge by any other name taste just as bitter? Perhaps. 

Even if the CCPA permits restaurants to rename service charge to let us say a ‘tip’, it would have to be on a voluntary basis. Technically, as per CCPA guidelines, service charge was discretionary even before the Delhi High Court’s judgment. And if CCPA permits levy of ‘tip’, we would enter similar issues of restaurants arguing that the ‘tips’ are voluntary and customers can request it to be waived off while customers claiming that the voluntary nature is only a ruse. Restaurants effectively collect ‘tip’ as if it’s a mandatory charge. Equally, GST will have to levied on food cost and ‘tip’, if paid. Thus, the ‘double whammy’ may persist. 

Can consumers confuse a ‘tip’ with a ‘tax’? Well, ideally, they should not confuse a service charge with a tax either. Not after July 2017, since the terms service charge and GST are not eerily similar. However, one should not take the view of a tax professional but deploy the standard of an average reasonable consumer. It is difficult to predict with mathematical certitude, but a ‘tip’ or ‘gratuity’ seems like a relatively less confusing option. If CCPA can mandate that no restaurants cannot use abbreviations or alternate names which can lead to confusion as in the case of service charge. There should be one voluntary levy and its name uniform across all restaurants.  

Finally, I’m prompted to ask a question: do we mistake any other levy by private entity as a tax? Is there any comparable example? 

There have been instances of conmen masquerading as tax officers, and fooling people into paying money, but I cannot think of a comparable levy where an average person has been confused that the money is not being collected by the State, but a private entity. Perhaps some people were confused if the maintenance fee paid to their resident associations was a State levy, but the confusion doesn’t seem as widespread as for service charge. The confusion seems a rather peculiar and unique problem to service charge. And one that may require an innovative solution. Though, equally possibly, restaurants may eschew the path of levying or collecting any ‘tip’ and may simply raise prices of food to compensate. Wait and watch, I guess.  

Powers of Arrest under CGST Act, 2017 and Customs Act, 1962: Constitutionality and their Scope

by

The Supreme Court in a recent judgment upheld the constitutionality of arrest-related provisions contained in Customs Act, 1962 and CGST Act, 2017. The Court also elaborated on the scope of arrest powers under CGST Act, 2017 and safeguards applicable to an arrestee. The judgment reiterates some well-established principles and clarifies the law on a few uncertain issues. In this article, I examine the judgment in 3 parts: first, the import of Om Prakash judgment and Court’s opinion on arrest powers under Customs Act ,1962; second, the issue of constitutionality of arrest-related provisions contained in CGST Act, 2017, and third, the scope and contours of arrest-related powers under GST laws along with a comment on Justice Bela Trivedi’s concurring opinion and its possible implication. 

Part I: Om Prakash Judgment and Customs Act, 1962 

Om Prakash Judgment 

In Om Prakash judgment, the Supreme Court heard two matters relating to Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue in both matters was that all offences under both the statutes are non-cognizable, but are they bailable? The Court held that while the offences were non-cognizable, they were bailable. The Court referred to relevant provisions of the CrPC, 1973 and statutes in question to support its conclusion. For example, the Court referred to Section 9A, Central Excise Act, 1944 and held that the legislative intent is recovery of dues and not punish individuals who contravene the statutory provisions. And the scheme of CrPC also suggests that even non-cognizable offences are bailable, unless specifically provided. 

The Supreme Court in Om Prakash judgment also clarified that even though customs and excise officers had been conferred with powers of arrest, their powers were not beyond that of a police officer. And for non-cognizable offences, the officers under both statutes had to seek warrant from the Magistrate under Sec 41, CrPC, 1973.  

Amendments to Customs Act, 1962 

Section 104, Customs Act, 1962 was amended in 2012, 2013, and 2019 to modify and to some extent circumvent the application of Om Prakash judgment. Supreme Court’s insistence on tax officers seeking Magistrate’s permission before making an arrest was sought both – acknowledged and modified via amendments to the Customs Act, 1962. To begin with, Customs Act, 1962 bifurcated offences into two clear categories: cognizable and non-cognizable and the amended provisions clearly specified which offences were bailable or non-bailable. These amendments which were the subject of challenge in the impugned case. 

The Supreme Court rejected the challenge and held that petitioner’s reliance on Om Prakash judgment was incorrect. But were the pre-conditions for arrest in Customs Act, 1962 sufficient to safeguard liberty? Were there sufficient safeguards against arbitrary arrest to protect the constitutional guaranteed liberties? 

The Supreme Court clarified that the safeguards contained in Sections 41-A, 41-D, 50A, and 55A of CrPC shall be applicable to arrests made by customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962. The arrestee would have to informed about grounds of arrest, the arresting officer should be clearly identifiable through a badge being some of the protections available to an arrestee. Court added that mandating that said safeguards of CrPC shall apply to arrests by customs officers ‘do not in any way fall foul of or repudiate the provisions of the Customs Act. They complement the provisions of the Customs Act and in a way ensure better regulation, ensuring due compliance with the statutory conditions of making an arrest.’ (para 29) 

The Supreme Court further added that safeguards provided in Customs Act, 1962 were in itself also adequate to protect life and liberty of the persons who could be arrested under the statute. The Supreme Court noted that the threshold of ‘reason to believe’ was higher than the ‘mere suspicion’ threshold provided under Section 41, CrPC. And that the categorisation of offences under the Customs Act, 1962 wherein clear monetary thresholds were prescribed for non-cognizable and non-bailable offences enjoined the arresting officers to specifically state that the statutory thresholds for arrest have been satisfied. 

Finally, the Supreme Court read into Section 104, Customs Act, 1962 the requirement of informing the accused of grounds of arrest as it was in consonance with the mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court exhorted the officers to follow the mandate and guidelines laid down in Arvind Kejriwal casewhere it had specified parameters of a legal arrest in the context of Sec 19, PMLA, 2002. 

While dismissing the challenge to constitutionality of arrest-related provisions of Customs Act, 1962 the Supreme Court cautioned and underlined the need to prevent frustration of statutory and constitutional rights of the arrestee. 

Overall, the Supreme Court was of the view that pre-conditions for arrest specified in Customs Act, 1962 were not constitutional and safeguarded the liberties of an arrestee while obligating the custom officers to clearly specify that the conditions for arrest were satisfied. The Court also clarified that various safeguards prescribed in CrPC, 1973 were available to an arrestee during arrests made under Customs Act, 1962.  

Part II: Constitutionality of Arrest-Related Provisions in CGST Act, 2017

Article 246A Has a Broad Scope 

The constitutionality of arrest-related provisions contained in CGST Act, 2017 was previously upheld by the Delhi High Court in Dhruv Krishan Maggu case, as I mentioned elsewhere. The Supreme Court in impugned case also upheld the constitutionality of provisions.  The arguments against constitutionality of arrest-related provisions in CGST Act, 2017 were similar in the impugned case as they were before the Delhi High Court. The petitioner’s challenge was two-fold: first, Parliament can enact arrest related provisions only for subject matters contained in List I; second, powers relating to arrest, summon, etc. are not incidental to power to levy GST and thus arrest-related provisions cannot be enacted under Article 246A of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of petitioner’s argument on constitutionality was in the following words: 

The Parliament, under Article 246-A of the Constitution, has the power to make laws regarding GST and, as a necessary corollary, enact provisions against tax evasion. Article 246-A of the Constitution is a comprehensive provision and the doctrine of pith and substance applies. The impugned provisions lay down the power to summon and arrest, powers necessary for the effective levy and collection of GST. (para 75) 

Supreme Court relied on the doctrine of liberal interpretation of legislative entries, wherein courts have noted that the entries need to be interpreted liberally to include legislative powers on matters that are incidental and ancillary to the subject contained in legislative entry. Relying on above, the Supreme Court concluded that: 

Thus, a penalty or prosecution mechanism for the levy and collection of GST, and for checking its evasion, is a permissible exercise of legislative power. The GST Acts, in pith and substance, pertain to Article 246-A of the Constitution and the powers to summon, arrest and prosecute are ancillary and incidental to the power to levy and collect goods and services tax. In view of the aforesaid, the vires challenge to Sections 69 and 70 of the GST Acts must fail and is accordingly rejected. (para 75) 

The Supreme Court has correctly interpreted Article 246A in the impugned case. The Court liberally interpreted the scope of Article 246A in a previous case as well. The Court’s observations in the impugned case align with its previous interpretation wherein the Court has been clear that Article 246A needs to be interpreted liberally – akin to legislative entries – and include in its sweep legislative powers not merely to levy GST but ancillary powers relating to administration and ensuring compliance with GST laws. 

The nature of Article 246A is such that it needs to be interpreted akin to a legislative entry since there is no specific GST-related legislative entry in the Constitution. The power to enact GST laws and bifurcation of powers in relation to GST are both contained in Article 246A itself investing the provision with the unique character of a legislative entry as well as source of legislative power in relation to GST. 

Part III: Scope and Contours of Arrest Powers under CGST Act, 2017

Reason to Believe and Judicial Review  

The Supreme Court referred to the relevant provisions of GST laws to note that there is clear distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences under the GST laws. And bailable and non-bailable offences have also been bifurcated indicating the legislature’s cognizance of Om Prakash’s judgment. Further, the nature of offence is linked to the quantum of tax evaded. While the threshold to trigger arrest under CGST Act, 2017 is the Commissioner’s ‘reason to believe’ that an offence has been committed. In this respect, the Court emphasized that the Commissioner should refer to the material forming the basis of his finding regarding commission of the offence. And that an arrest cannot be made to investigate if an offence has been committed. The Supreme Court also pronounced a general caution about the need to exercise arrest powers judiciously. 

Another riddle of arrest that the Supreme Court tried to resolve was: whether a taxpayer can be arrested prior to completion of assessment? An assessment order quantifies the tax evasion or input tax credit wrongly availed. And since under CGST Act, 2017 the classification of whether an offence is cognizable or otherwise is typically dependent on the quantum of tax evaded, this is a crucial question. And there is merit in stating that the assessment order should precede an arrest since only then can the nature of offence by truly established. In MakeMyTrip case – decided under Finance Act, 1994, the Delhi High Court had mentioned that an arrest without an assessment order is akin to putting the horse before a cart. And in my view, in the absence of an assessment order, the Revenue’s allegation about the quantum of tax evaded is merely that: an allegation. And there is a tendency to inflate the amount of tax evaded in the absence of an assessment order. And an inflated amount tends to discourage courts from granting bail immediately and can even change the nature of an offence.  

However, the Supreme Court in the impugned case noted that it cannot lay down a ‘general and broad proposition’ that arrest powers cannot be exercised before issuance of assessment orders. (para 59) There may be cases, the Supreme Court noted where the Commissioner can state with a certain degree of certainty that an offence has been committed and in such cases arrest can be effectuated without completion of an assessment order. 

Here again, the Supreme Court stated that the CBIC’s guidelines on arrest will act as a safeguard alongwith its previous observations on arrest by custom officers, which will also apply to arrest under GST laws.      

The issue is that CBIC issued the guidelines on arrest in 2022, and yet the Supreme Court noted that there have been instances of officers forcing tax payments and arresting taxpayers. And though the arrests led to recovery of revenue, the element of coercion in tax payments cannot be overlooked. If the coercive element during arrest was present even despite the guidelines, then perhaps an even stronger pushback is needed against arbitrary and excessive use of arrest powers. While the Supreme Court has done well in stating that various safeguards will apply to arrests such as those enlisted in various provisions of CrPC and requirements of warrants from Magistrates in non-cognizable offences, even the numerous safeguards, at times, don’t seem enough to protect taxpayers.   

Justice Bela M. Trivedi’s Concurring Opinion  

Justice Bela M. Trivedi’s concurring opinion prima facie dilutes safeguards provided to taxpayers. The Revenue is likely to use her words to argue against any judicial interference and deny bail to accused. Justice Trivedi clearly noted that when legality of arrests under legislations such as GST are challenged, the courts must be extremely loath in exercising their power of judicial review. The courts must confine themselves to examine if the constitutional and statutory safeguards were met and not examine the adequacy of material on which the Commissioner formed a ‘reason to believe’ nor examine accuracy of facts. 

Justice Trivedi was emphatic that adequacy of material will not be subject to judicial review since an arrest may ordinarily happen at initial stages of an investigation. The phrase ‘reason to believe’, she observed, implies that the Commissioner has formed a prima facie opinion that the offence has been committed. Sufficiency or adequacy of material leading to formation of such belief will not be subject to judicial review at nascent stage of inquiry. The reason, as per Justice Trivedi was that ‘casual and frequent’ interference by courts could embolden the accused and frustrate the objects of special legislations such as GST laws. Limited judicial review powers for powers exercised on ‘reason to believe’ is a recurring theme in the jurisprudence on this standard. Reason to believe is a standard prescribed under IT Act, 1961 as well and courts have clear about not scrutinizing the material which forms the basis of the officer’s belief. 

However, some of Justice Trivedi’s observations seem at odds with the lead opinion which requires written statements about Commissioner’s belief, reference to material on basis of which the Commissioner forms the ‘reason to believe’ that lead to arrest. The majority opinion is also clear about power of judicial review in case of payment of tax under threat of arrest, power of courts to provide bail even if no FIR is filed, among other safeguards. Though in the leading opinion there is no clear opinion about scope of judicial review at preliminary or later stages of investigation.  

One possible manner to reconcile Justice Trivedi’s concurring opinion with the lead opinion is that her observations about narrow judicial review are only for preliminary stages of investigation. And that courts can exercise wider powers of judicial review at later stages of investigation. And that her view is only limited to ensuring that once the statutory safeguards have been met, courts should not stand in the way of officers to complete their inquiries and investigations else aims of the special laws such as GST may not be met. But her views are likely to be interpreted in multiple manners and the Revenue will certainly prefer her stance in matters relating to bail, not just at the initial stage of investigation but during the entire investigative process.   

Conclusion 

In the impugned case, the Supreme Court has advanced the jurisprudence on arrests under tax laws to some extent. But the observations are not in the context of any facts but in a case involving constitutional challenge. Thus, numerous safeguards that the Court has noted will apply to arrests made by customs officers or under GST Acts will be tested in future. Courts will have to ascertain if the arrests were made after fulfilment of the various safeguards, whether taxes were paid under threats of arrests, and other likely abuse of powers. The crucial test will be how and if to grant bail including anticipatory bail in matters where FIR is not registered. 

Finally, ‘reason to believe’ is admittedly a subjective standard. It is the opinion of an officer based on the material that comes to their notice. And courts while may examine the material, cannot replace their own subjective view with that of the officer. The test in such cases is if a reasonable person will arrive at the same conclusion based on the material as arrived at by the Commissioner. Thus, ‘reason to believe’ as a standard per se, limits scope of judicial review and confers immense discretion to the Commissioner to exercise powers of arrest. The jurisprudence on this issue – both under the IT Act, 1961 and GST laws – is evidently uneven due to the subjective nature of standard. And courts have not been able to form a clear and unambiguous stance on the scope of judicial review with respect to the ‘reason to believe’ standard. And this unevenness and relatively weak protection afforded to taxpayers is likely to continue in the future as well despite the Supreme Court’s lofty observations in the impugned case.             

            

CERC Is Exempt from GST: Delhi HC 

by

The Delhi High Court in a recent judgment held that the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘Commission’) were not liable to pay GST. The Revenue sought to levy on the fees and tariff that Commission received from the power utilities. The Revenue contended that functions performed by the Commission were ‘support services to electricity transmission and distribution services’ under a 2017 Notification issued by CBIC. The Revenue clarified that while no GST was payable on services provided via electricity transmission and distribution services, but support services rendered in the contest of electricity transmission and distribution were subject to GST. 

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Commission. 

Facts and Arguments 

Commission receives various amounts under different heads such as filing fee, tariff fee, license fee, annual registration fee and miscellaneous fee. Commission took the stance that GST is not payable on such amounts since it is performing statutory functions under the Electricity Act, 2003 and is essentially not engaged in any trade or commerce. 

Revenue’s argument – derived from its Show Cause Notices (SCNs) – before the High Court was that the Commission awards licences for distribution and transmission of electricity and charges licence fees. Thus, the definition of business read with consideration under CGST Act, 2017 makes it amply clear that the Commission is supplying services. And any such amount received is taxable under GST.  

The Revenue relied on two major elements to strengthen its argument about liability of the Commission to pay GST: 

First, it relied on FAQs where the CBIC had clarified that Commission is not a Government for the purpose of GST but is appropriately classified as a regulatory agency. And any financial consideration received by the Commission for any service provided by it was liable to GST. Since the regulatory activities performed by the Commission for which it received money amounted to ‘business’, the Commission was classified as a business entity under the said FAQs.  

Second, and the Revenue reasoned this in its SCN as well: the Commission performs both regulatory and adjudicatory functions. That regulatory functions of the Commission fall outside the purview of quasi-judicial functions and while performing such functions it does not have the trappings of a full-fledged court. Further, the licence fee is received by the Commission for its regulatory functions. The Revenue argued that it is immaterial if the regulatory functions of the Commission are mandated by the statute or not, as long as consideration is received by it is for supply of, services it amounts to a supply for which GST is liable to be paid.   

The Commission questioned the Revenue’s bifurcation between its regulatory and adjudicatory functions and contended that discharge of statutory duties by it in public interest cannot be subjected to GST. 

Relevant Provisions of GST 

The High Court reproduced the relevant provisions of CGST Act, 2017 relating to supply, business, and consideration. 

Section 7, CGST Act, 2017 defines supply to include all forms of supply of goods or services or both made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business. 

Clause 2, Schedule III, CGST Act, 2017 states that services provided by a Court or Tribunal established under any law for the time being in force will not be considered either as supply of goods or supply of services.  

Definitions of business and consideration under CGST Act, 2017 are as follows: 

―2. Definitions. —In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- 

      xxxx                    xxxx                    xxxx

(17) ―business‖ includes— 

(a) any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity, whether or not it is for a pecuniary benefit; 

(b) any activity or transaction in connection with or incidental or ancillary to sub-clause (a); 

(c) any activity or transaction in the nature of sub-clause (a), whether or not there is volume, frequency, continuity or regularity of such transaction; 

(d) supply or acquisition of goods including capital goods and services in connection with commencement or closure of business; 

(e) provision by a club, association, society, or any such body (for a subscription or any other consideration) of the facilities or benefits to its members; 

(f) admission, for a consideration, of persons to any premises; 

(g) services supplied by a person as the holder of an office which has been accepted by him in the course or furtherance of his trade, profession or vocation; 

(h) activities of a race club including by way of totalisator or a license to book maker or activities of a licensed book maker in such club; and; 

(i) any activity or transaction undertaken by the Central Government, a State Government or any local authority in which they are engaged as public authorities;‖ 

―2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— 

      xxxx                    xxxx                    xxxx

(31) ―consideration‖ in relation to the supply of goods or services or both includes—

(a) any payment made or to be made, whether in money or otherwise, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government; 

(b) the monetary value of any act or forbearance, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government: 

Provided that a deposit given in respect of the supply of goods or services or both shall not be considered as payment made for such supply unless the supplier applies such deposit as consideration for the said supply;

The Delhi High Court examined the above two definitions in detail to reject Revenue’s contention. 

Decision 

The Delhi High Court noted that the Commission certainly acts as a tribunal, but the Revenue seeks to distinguish between the adjudicatory and regulatory functions of the Commission. The bifurcation warranted an examination of the definition of business and consideration in tandem with supply as defined under Section 7, CGST Act, 2017. 

As regards the definition of business, the Delhi High Court observed that clause (a) was the applicable clause. But the High Court observed that it cannot fathom how the power of regulation statutorily vested in the Commission can be included in any of the activities enlisted in the definition of business. Further, while clause (i) included activities undertaken by the Central or State Governments, the High Court noted that the Commission being a statutory body could not be equated with either of the two entities. 

As regards the definition of consideration, the Delhi High Court noted that it draws colour from the definition of business and it needs to be in relation or response to inducement of supply of goods or services. And here two elements need to be satisfied: first, the payment received must be outcome of an inducement of supply of goods or services; second, the supply must be in the course of or furtherance of business. 

As regards the first element, the High Court noted that: 

Suffice it to note that it was not even remotely sought to be contended by the respondents that the payments in the form of fee as received by Commissions were an outcome of an inducement to supply goods or services. (para 29) 

The above observation is not entirely accurate, since the SCN did mention that the Commission was providing support services for electricity transmission and distribution services. 

Nonetheless, even if one accepts that the money received by the Commission was in response to inducement of supply of goods or services, the said money must be in course or furtherance of business. To this end, the Delhi High Court observed that the functions performed by the Commission cannot be included in the term ‘business’ as defined under Section 2(17), CGST Act, 2017 and concluded: 

We find ourselves unable to accept, affirm or even fathom the conclusion that regulation of tariff, inter-State transmission of electricity or the issuance of license would be liable to be construed as activities undertaken or functions discharged in the furtherance of business. (para 33)

Finally, what about the bifurcation between regulatory and adjudicatory functions of the Commission? As per the Delhi High Court that the Electricity Act made no distinction between regulatory and adjudicatory functions of the Commission and that the statute had enjoined the Commission to regulate and administer electricity distribution. 

Conclusion 

The Delhi High Court’s decision stands on firm footing. And despite the CBIC and the GST Council having recommended otherwise, the High Court arrived at a clear and well-reasoned decision that the Commission was a tribunal. Even if it was accepted that the Commission received consideration in exercise of regulatory functions, it was not in course or furtherance of business. 

Finally, the Delhi High Court clarified that merely because was a heading: “Support services to electricity, gas and water distribution” which is placed under Group Heading 99863 of the CBIC Notification does not mean that the statutory exemption under Schedule III where services provided by a tribunal are excluded can be bypassed. The High Court helpfully clarified: 

What we seek to emphasise is that a notification would neither expand the scope of the parent entry nor can it be construed as taking away an exemption which stands granted under the CGST Act. There cannot possibly be even a cavil of doubt that a Schedule constitutes an integral part and component of the principal legislation. (para 36) 

Whether the Revenue will appeal against this decision will be revealed in due course, but for now, a well-reasoned decision of the Delhi High Court has clarified the GST implications of the Commission’s functions. 

Telecommunication Towers are Movable Property under GST: Delhi HC

by

The Delhi High Court in a recent decision held that telecommunication towers are best characterized as movable property under Section 17(5), CGST Act, 2017 and are eligible for input tax credit (‘ITC’). 

Facts 

Indus Towers filed a writ petition impugning the showcause notice issued under Section 74, CGST Act, 2017. The notice issued a demand for tax along with interest and penalty. Indus Towers was engaged in the business of providing passive infrastructure services to telecommunication service providers. And the notices denied it ITC on inputs and input services used for setting up passive infrastructure on the ground. The Revenue’s argument was that the inputs were used in construction of telecommunication towers and fell in the ambit of Section 17(5)(d), CGST Act, 2017. The relevant portions of the provision are below to help us understand the issue better: 

17. Apportionment of credit and blocked credits. 

xxxxx

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 16 and sub-section (1) of Section 18, input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the following, namely:-  

xxx

(d) goods or services or both received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant or machinery) on his own account including when such goods or services or both are used in the course or furtherance of business. 

Xxx

Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter and Chapter VI, the expression “plant and machinery” means apparatus, equipment, and machinery fixed to earth by foundation or structural support that are used for making outward supply of goods or services or both and includes such foundation and structural supports but excludes – 

  • land, building or any other civil structures; 
  • telecommunication towers; and 
  • pipelines laid outside the factory premises. 

Revenue’s reading of the above extracted provisions was: plant and machinery is not immovable property and is eligible for ITC, but clause (ii) of the Explanation expressly excludes telecommunication towers from the scope of plant and machinery. Thus, telecommunication towers should be considered as immovable property on which ITC is blocked. 

Petitioner’s Arguments 

Petitioner’s assertion was that telecommunication towers more appropriately classified as movable and not immovable property. Petitioner argued that telecommunication towers are movable items of essential equipment used in telecommunications. The towers can be dismantled at site and are capable of being moved. The concrete structure on which the towers are placed could be treated as the immovable element of the equipment, but all other parts can be easily moved and shifted to other locations. And since the underlying concrete structure is essentially for the purpose of providing stability to the towers, it would not detract from the basic characteristic of towers as being a movable property. 

Precedents and Generic Principles of Immovable Property 

The Delhi High Court cited two major precedents: Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Mobile Services cases. The Supreme Court in the former and the Delhi High Court in the latter had opined that telecom towers are intrinsically movable items and liable to be treated as inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue’s contention was that both decisions should be distinguished. Under GST, the Explanation appended to Section 17, CGST Act, 2017 specifically excludes telecommunication towers from the ambit of plant and machinery, and thereby they should be treated as immovable property. The Delhi High Court relied on the above two precedents to disagree with the Revenue’s contentions.   

Additionally, the Delhi High Court cited a host of other principles enunciated in the context of TPA, 1882 where courts have tried to distinguish movable property from immovable property. Some of the principles to determine the nature of a property include: nature of annexation, object of annexation, intention of parties, functionality, permanency, and marketability test. 

The Delhi High Court cited Supreme Court’s observations in the Airtel case and how after applying the said tests, the Court had concluded that towers were not permanently annexed to the earth, but could be removed or relocated without causing any damage to them. And that the annexation of telecommunication towers to the earth was only to make them stable and wobble free. 

Expressing its complete agreement with Supreme Court’s observations, the Delhi High Court noted that the telecommunication towers were never erected with an intent of conferring permanency and their placement on concrete bases was only to help them overcome the vagaries of nature. The Revenue’s argument that telecommunication towers were immovable property, was as per the Delhi High Court, completely untenable.      

High Court Interprets Section 17(5) & the Explanation in a Curious Manner  

The Delhi High Court noted that telecommunication towers are not an immovable property in the first place and do not fall within the ambit of Section 17(5)(d). While the Explanation specifically excludes telecommunication towers from the ambit of the expression ‘plant and machinery’, the High Court observed that: 

… the specific exclusion of telecommunication towers from the scope of the phrase “plant and machinery” would not lead one to conclude that the statute contemplates or envisages telecommunication towers to be immovable property. Telecommunication towers would in any event have to quality as immovable property as a pre-condition to fall within the ambit of clause (d) of Section 17(5). Their exclusion from the expression “plant and machinery” would not result in it being concomitantly held that they constitute articles which are immoveable. (para 18) 

The High Court interpretation is a curious one. The legislative scheme under CGST Act, 2017 is: plant and machinery are not to be treated as immovable property, but telecommunication towers are specifically excluded from ambit of plant and machinery. Does mean that telecommunication towers move back into the category of immovable property since they are excluded from the exception? Prima facie, yes. But the Delhi High Court answered in negative. The High Court’s reasoning is that telecommunication towers are not an immovable property in the first place. The High Court’s opinion is not entirely convincing. Explanation to Section 17(5) excludes three specific things from the ambit of plant and machinery, i.e., 

  • land, building or any other civil structures; 
  • telecommunication towers; and 
  • pipelines laid outside the factory premises. 

Category (i) and (ii), are prima facie immovable property. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, one can argue that telecommunication towers also fall in the same category. Even if the generic principles of the concept of immovable property suggest that telecommunication towers are a movable property that is an answer in abstract. In the context of Explanation to Section 17(5), a case can be made that telecommunication towers are treated as immovable property by a deeming fiction. Section 17(5) read with the Explanation clearly suggests that telecommunication towers are to be treated as immovable property. The Delhi High Court’s opinion that telecommunication towers are not an immovable property in the first place does not adequately examine the interplay of the Explanation with the text of Section 17(5) and that the predecents cited were in the context of CENVAT Credit Rules and not GST law. This issue of telecommunication towers and their appropriate classification under GST may need a revisit in the future.   

ESOPs-Related Compensation Present an Interesting Dilemma

by

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

Facts 

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

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

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

Characterizing the Compensation – Summary of Arguments  

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESOPs are not a Capital Asset – Madras High Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESOPs are not Perquisites – Delhi High Court 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESOPs are Perquisites – Madras High Court 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion 

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

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

LinkedIn