AAR

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.   

Fraudulent Sale is Supply Under GST: Three Errors of the Advance Ruling

by

A recent advance ruling by Gujarat AAR is a frustrating read. AAR held that sale by a seller constitutes as supply under GST laws even if the seller was defrauded and did not receive any consideration for such goods. In this article, I argue that there are three obvious errors in the advance ruling, which encompass flaw in applicant’s arguments and AAR’s approach. The three errors are: 

First, the applicant’s framing of question. 

Second, AAR’s reasoning and identification of relevant provision. 

Third, applicant’s argument on why a fraudulent sale should not constitute a supply. 

The facts involved a peculiar and may I daresay a novel question that should have led to an interesting analysis of the relevant legal provisions and hopefully a defensible answer. Instead, what we receive via the advance ruling is a superficial analysis and a facile answer. 

The basic facts in application were: the applicant supplied submersible pumps for two months and generated several invoices for the said sales only to discover that it had been defrauded. The applicant did not receive any consideration for the supply of goods as the order documents were forged by a fraudulent purchaser by using the name of a reputable purchaser. Applicant approached AAR seeking an answer whether GST can be levied on the above transaction.  

First Error 

The question before AAR should have been whether such a fraudulent sale of goods constitutes a supply under GST laws, even in the absence of a consideration? Instead, applicant framed the question as:      

Whether the goods supplied by us [becoming victim of fraud without receiving consideration] could be considered as supply of goods under the provisions of section 21 under the IGST Act? 

Grammatical errors in the question aside, the legal question would be why did the applicant invoke Section 21, IGST Act, 2017? The impugned provision states that import of services made on or after the appointed day shall be liable to tax regardless, whether the transactions for import of such services had been initiated before the appointed day. However, the applicant’s transaction in question was an inter-State supply and nothing to do with import of services. Clearly, the applicant approached AAR with a question that referred to the wrong provision. And AAR also noted the applicant’s reference to the above provision and observed: 

How this will be applicable to supply of goods made by the applicant to the recipient in the State of Assam is not understood. We find that the question, at best is vaguely framed. (para 9)

The applicant’s query could not have been answered by referring to the wrong provision and thus another approach was necessary. 

Second Error 

In adopting the alternate approach, the AAR made an error by referring to Section 12, CGST Act, 2017 which states the time of supply of goods. Time of supply goods is a concept under GST which helps us determine at what point in time did the supply in question took place. To delineate and cohere various situations, the provision lays down certain rules including deeming fictions. AAR referred to Section 12 and noted that time of supply of goods is either the date of issue of invoice by the supplier or date on which the supplier receives payment with respect to the supply, whichever is earlier. Applying the above rules to the facts, AAR noted that the supplier had issued invoices in June 2023 and July 2023, thus the point of taxation in respect of supply of goods will be the date of issue of invoice. AAR thereby concluded that the applicant had supplied goods under relevant provisions of GST laws. 

The error in the above analysis by AAR is that it did not consider if supply had been made. Time of supply as the phrase indicates is only relevant for a supply. The more relevant question for AAR was if a supply had been made and not the time of supply. Latter was contingent on the former. AAR, instead, assumed that the supply had been made and relied on time of supply and invoices to state that a supply had been made. 

Third Error 

This leads us to the third error: applicant’s argument that no supply had taken place. The applicant relied on Sales of Goods Act, 1930 to argue that a valid sale had not taken place since all the essential ingredients of a sale were not satisfied in absence of a consideration. AAR declined to accept applicant’s above argument and referred to Section 7, CGST Act, 2017 which defines supply. However, instead of analysing if the ingredients of supply were satisfied in the impugned case, AAR took a short route and simply noted that ‘it is not disputed that a supply has been done by the applicant’. (para 14) AAR concluded that while a fraud may vitiate the contract of sale, the applicant has not explained how a fraudulent sale moves outside the ambit of supply. 

The error here is actually two-fold: first, the applicant invoking Sales of Goods Act, 1930 instead of categorically stating that the ingredients of supply are not satisfied in the impugned case; second, AAR only reproducing the definition of supply in its ruling rather than examining if a supply can take place under Section 7, CGST Act, 2017 even if the purchaser pays no consideration. To be fair though, AAR would not undertake the latter exercise if the applicant doesn’t argue for it. And it seems the four people representing the applicant before AAR didn’t make the argument and instead surprisingly relied on Sales of Goods Act, 1930 to argue that a sale had not taken place.      

Conclusion 

The first instinct is to club Gujarat AAR’s impugned ruling with the wide swathe of sub-par advance rulings under GST. While AAR is not completely faultless in this ruling and did commit its own error, the applicant approached AAR with a wrongly framed question and made some misjudged arguments. There is only so much that AAR can do when the applicant adopts such a flawed approach. AAR to some extent did salvage the situation. But just about. Irrespective, I doubt we have heard the last word on this issue. 

Much Ado About Demo Vehicles: Ambiguity on ITC Clarified

by

The CBIC recently issued a Circular clarifying availability of ITC in respect of demo vehicles. The Circular, as I briefly mentioned elsewhere, seems like an exercise in law making rather than a mere interpretation of law. But I will keep that view aside for the purpose of this article. In this article, I focus on the ambiguity that emerged on ITC availability for demo vehicles, due to divergent views of AARs/AAARs, the relevant statutory provisions, and then describe how the recent CBIC Circular clarifies the law. I conclude that the confusion regarding availability of ITC on demo vehicles was avoidable if AARs/AAARs had adopted a more rigorous interpretive approach. However, going forward it may be prudent to align with the CBIC’s view expressed in its latest circular in the interest of taxpayers. 

ITC is Blocked, but there are Exceptions 

Section 17(5)(a), CGST Act, 2017 states that: ITC shall not be available in respect of motor vehicles for transportation of persons having approved seating capacity of not more than thirteen persons (including the driver), except when they are used for making the following taxable supplies, namely –  

(A)  further supply of such motor vehicles; or 

(B)  transportation of passengers; or 

(C)  imparting training on driving such motor vehicles; 

The policy rationale behind blocking ITC for motor vehicles of the above description is unclear and so is the reason for exceptions incorporated in the provision. And while the CBIC in its Circular and AAR/AAARs in some of their rulings have said that they are trying to decipher the ‘intent of law’, the phrase has been used erroneously. Neither the CBIC nor AAR/AAARs have referred to any legislative debates or other legislative instruments to decipher legislative intent behind the above provision. The phrase ‘intent of law’ has been used to merely describe the process of statutory interpretation. In fact, I would argue that the attempt to decipher legislative intent in the above instances is nothing except but second guessing legislative policy. It is best to understand the attempts by AAR/AAARs and CBIC as an attempt to clarify the meaning of the above provision through a process of interpretation. And nothing more.  

Advance Rulings are Decidedly Ambiguous   

The advance rulings – of AAR and AAAR – on the issue can be broadly grouped into two categories: one category has allowed ITC on demo vehicles, while the other category has disallowed it. An overview of both categories of advance rulings is below. 

In one ruling the Madhya Pradesh AAAR expressed its agreement with the AAR and held that the sale of demo vehicle in the subsequent year when depreciation has been charged shall be treated as sale of a second hand vehicle. It negatived the appellant’s contention that there was no time limit for ‘further supply’ of the demo vehicles under sub-clause (A) and that ITC should be available on sale of demo vehicle. AAAR’s emphasis was on the fact that demo vehicles are capitalised by the car dealer and serve a particular purpose for a limited period. Thereafter, the dealer sells the demo car as a second hand car. AAAR refused to engage with the appellant’s argument that the demo vehicles were used for further supply of such motor vehicles, and its focus on depreciation and capitalisation almost nudged the appellant to claim depreciation on the tax component under IT Act, 1961 instead of claiming ITC under GST laws. 

In another ruling, the Haryana AAAR expressed a similar opinion as the Madhya Pradesh AAAR and noted that sale of a demo vehicle is akin to sale of a ‘second hand good’ which is different from a new vehicle and it cannot be said that ‘demo vehicle is for further supply of such vehicles’. Haryana AAAR expressed the apprehension that: 

If the contentions of the applicant is allowed then in that case all the motor vehicles, irrespective of the nature of Supply will be eligible for ITC across the industries. It will no longer be a restricted clause for Car Dealers , but will be an open-clause for all the trade and industry to avail the ITC on all the Vehicles purchased by them. 

As per the Haryana AAAR, the legislative intent was to allow ITC on motor vehicles only in limited conditions such as when there is further supply of such vehicles. However, a demo vehicle is put to different uses and then sold as a second hand good making it ineligible to claim ITC. 

At the same time, other AARs have held that ITC is available on demo cars. Goa AAR, simply held that demo cars are an indispensable tool for providing a trial run to the customers and are used in the course or furtherance of business. Thus, ITC is available on demo cars whenever they are sold. The Bengal AAR, delved a bit deeper into the provision and clarified that claim for ITC under Section 17(5)(a)(A) is not time barred nor is it barred on the ground that the outer supply was made at a lower price than the purchase price. Interpreting the provision in a pointed fashion, the AAR opined that: 

In our considered opinion, the word ‘such’ as used in the expression ‘further supply of such vehicles’ relates to the vehicle only that was purchased. It is a fact that the condition of a demo vehicle at the time of its further supply might have undergone some deterioration from the spick and span condition in which it was at the time of its purchase. But that does not detract from the reality that the vehicle when supplied by a car dealer has ceased to be such vehicle that was purchased. (para 4.11)

The Bengal AAR clarified an important interpretive point which seems to have bypassed other AARs: whether the outward supply should be of the demo vehicle or other similar vehicles? Bengal AAR’s view was that used of the word ‘such’ qualifies and clarifies that outward supply has to be of the vehicle purchased, i.e., the demo vehicle. And the demo vehicle may have deteriorated due to its use by the car dealer, but it does not detract from the intent and scope of the provision. Kerala AAR also took a similar view and held that the demo vehicles are purchased for further supply and sale after their use for a certain period of time. Thus, the sale of such demo vehicles satisfies the requirement of ‘further supply of such vehicles’ as prescribed under Section 17(5)(A) and ITC is available on demo vehicles.  

The denial of ITC on sale of demo vehicles was premised their sale being comparable to second hand goods, the fact that they were capitalised in books of the car dealer while allowance of ITC was based on the fact that demo vehicles were used for furtherance of business and there was no express restriction on ITC even if the demo vehicles were used by the dealer before being sold. Except for the Bengal AAR, no advance ruling provided clarity or attempted to provide it by interpreting if the phrase ‘supply of such motor vehicles’ included only the demo vehicle or other motor vehicles that were sold by using the demo vehicle. To its credit, only CBIC engaged with this crucial interpretive issue in its Circular. 

CBIC Clarifies and Decodes ‘Intent of the Law’ 

CBIC has intervened to clarify the law on the point, since the rulings of various AARs and AAARs failed to provide any certainty and clarity. The Circular notes a few elemental points and clarifies a few crucial ones: 

First, the Circular notes a fairly obvious point: the intent of the law seems clear that based on the nature of outward supplies, ITC in respect of motor vehicles is blocked in several instances. 

Second, that sub-clauses (B) and (C) are inapplicable in situations involving sale of demo vehicles. And only clause (A) of the exception is relevant to determine if ITC can be claimed on sale of demo vehicles. Interpreting the expression ‘such motor vehicles’, the Circular states: 

… the usage of the words “such motor vehicles” instead of “said motor vehicle”, in sub-clause (A) of the clause (a) of section 17(5) of CGST Act, implies that the intention of the lawmakers was not only to exclude from the blockage of input tax credit, the motor vehicle which is itself further supplied, but also to exclude from the blockage of input tax credit, the motor vehicle which is being used for the purpose of further supply of similar type of motor vehicles. (Para 4.4) 

The Circular added that since demo vehicles are used by authorised dealers to provide trial runs to the customers, display features of the vehicle and help consumer purchase similar features, they can be considered by the dealer as being used for making ‘further supply of such vehicles’. Thus, ITC is available in respect of sale of demo vehicles. 

However, the Circular clarifies that when demo vehicles are used to transport employees/management, etc. ITC will be blocked. Equally, ITC will be blocked when the dealer merely uses the demo vehicle for advertising on behalf of the manufacturer and is not directly involved in the sale and purchase of the vehicles. Since in such cases, the invoice is issued by the manufacturer and sale of the vehicle is not made by the dealer on his own account. 

Finally, the Circular also clarified – what should have been obvious and a straightforward conclusion for AAR/AAARs – that capitalisation of demo vehicle in the books of the dealer does not affect the availability of ITC. Under Section 16 read with Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017, ITC is available on both capital and non-capital goods as long as the goods are used in the course or furtherance of business. In clarifying the capitalisation aspect, CBIC through its Circular has effectively negated a line of inquiry adopted by certain AAR/AAARs that treated capitalisation of the demo vehicles as vital in determining if ITC is available on their sale. 

Conclusion 

The entire saga on availability of ITC on demo vehicles seems like much ado about nothing. The entire issue revolved around whether the demo vehicle can be included in the expression ‘further supply of such motor vehicles’, with the word ‘such’ being crucial. The Bengal AAR interpreted ‘such’ to only include the vehicle in question, while CBIC has adopted a comparatively wider approach and included vehicles purchased to make further supply of similar motor vehicles. Demo vehicles are now undoubtedly included in the expression. But, does this mean – an anxiety expressed by Haryana AAAR – that now ‘all vehicles’ purchased by a dealer could be included in the exception of sub-clause (A) and on all such vehicles ITC can be claimed? Unlikely. The proximate relationship of the purchased vehicle and further supply will need to be established to claim ITC, which can be easily done in case of demo vehicles. Establishing the same would be much tougher for ‘all other vehicles’ that a dealer may purchase. Thus, the anxiety of Haryana AAAR may turn out to be hollow. Or at least it should be unless AAR/AAARs decide to another unwanted twist to the issue.  

Finally, if the AAR/AAARs had kept the interpretive question narrow and focused on the words and expressions of Section 17(5)(a) that demanded an interpretation, we would have had better and perhaps coherent answers to the taxpayer’s queries. The tangents of sale of demo vehicles being akin to sale of second hand vehicles, and undue emphasis on capitalisation of the demo vehicles by AAR/AAARs prevented a more prudent answer from emerging through various advance rulings. Hopefully, we will witness better advance rulings going forward, at least on this issue which seems to have gained great clarity with the issuance of CBIC’s circular.  

LinkedIn