GST
Health and National Security Cess: Some Context
The Lok Sabha on 5th December 2025, passed the Health Security se National Security Cess Bill, 2025. The Health se National Security Cess (‘Health and National Security Cess’) is an unusual marriage of public health and national security. And an example that when the State is determined for revenue, even tax law is not alien to creativity.
In the first part of this article, I examine the Union of India’s previous conceptualization – but inability to operationalize – a standalone National Defence Fund. Instead, six years after mooting the idea of a National Defence Fund, the Union seems to have adopted the relatively easy way of levying another cess for funding national security related expenses. In the second part of this article, I address the public health component. I state that income taxpayers currently pay a Health and Education Cess. The introduction of Health and National Security Cess means we have two ‘partial cesses’ for public health. Public health is crucial – and underfunded – to necessitate additional money via two cesses, but not crucial enough to deserve its own dedicated cess. Ironically, we still won’t know how much money from both cesses is will be specifically spent on public health.
I conclude that while both national security and public health are crucial, the need for a cess apart from the general budgetary allocation requires a stronger – and better articulated – jusitifcation. Merely saying that the State needs additional revenue is not sufficient. Union and even States increasingly prefer cesses because they offer an easy route to raise additional money without adequate accountability. Successive Finance Commissions have recommended reduction in cesses on grounds of their misuse and lack of transparency. But the Indian tax policy landscape stubbornly moves in the opposite direction.
I. Introduction
Preamble of the Health Security se National Security Cess Bill, 2025 (‘Bill’) states that resources need to be augmented for meeting expenses on national security and for public health. The Health and National Security Cess has been termed as a ‘special excise cess’. Clause 3 of the Bill imposes tax liability on any person who owns, possesses, or controls or undertakes a process by which specified goods are manufactured. And Schedule I of the Bill lists pan masala as the specified good. Though the Union of India is empowered to notify ‘any other goods’ as specified goods under the Bill. Clearly the Health and National Security Cess can be extended to other ‘demerit’ goods to further augment revenue collection. Why do we need this cess? Augmenting of revenues is a standard reason and can be used for any tax and doesn’t fully explain the imposition and levy of Health and National Security Cess. The proximate reasons for the Health and National Security Cess are two-fold:
One, as the finance minister explained in the Rajya Sabha, until September 2025 the levy of GST Compensation Cess ensured that de-merit goods such as tobacco and pan masala were subjected to a high tax rate of approximately 88%. With the rationalization of GST rates, the highest tax rate is now 40%, and GST Compensation Cess has been phased out. The Health and National Security Cess aims to preserve the previous revenue stream from demerit goods such as pan masala without disturbing the new three-tier GST rate structure.
Second – and this is specifically for national security – the Union has been unable to operationalise a standalone Defence Fund. The idea of a Defence Fund was mooted by the Union six years ago. The Union in July 2019, amended the Terms of Reference of the 15th Finance Commission (‘Commission’) to specifically require the Commission to examine a separate mechanism for funding defence and internal security. The Commission was required to examine if a standalone Defence Fund should be set up and how it should be operationalized. The Commission in its final report – submitted in October 2021 – recommended establishment of the Defence Fund and also provided detailed and specific targets for a five-year period. But the Union did not take any concrete steps. Eventually, in December 2025 the Union has instead adopted the familiar path of levying a cess, i.e., the Health and National Security Cess.
II. Defence and Internal Security
a. A ‘Defence Fund’ Conceptualized
The Terms of Reference (ToR) of the 15th Finance Commission required it to examine whether a separate mechanism for funding of defence and internal security ought to be setup and how to operationalize the fund. The above clause was added in ToR via an amendment. And the request was also unprecedented since no previous Finance Commission had been tasked with a similar obligation. The immediate concern from States was that the Union may reduce funds available in the common divisible pool by earmarking a portion of States’ funds towards the ‘Defence Fund’. Various States made similar representations to the Commission arguing that they were not opposed to a Defence Fund if it does not shrink the common divisible pool.
The Union – primarily through the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Home Affairs – made a strong case for a Defence Fund before the Commission. Both Ministries made similar arguments, i.e., the budgetary allocations were insufficient to meet their capital expense needs for defence and internal security. And a Defence Fund will partially meet the shortfall.
The Commission examined the issue in detail and recommended that the Union setup a dedicated, non-lapsable fund called Modernisation Fund for Defence and Internal Security (MFDIS). The Ministry of Defence was to retain exclusive rights over the MFDIS and Ministry of Home Affairs could only utilize a part amount for internal security. The Commission identified four specific sources for incremental funding and even provided annual targets to the Union of India. A screenshot from the Finance Commission’s report below shows it ambitious plan to earmark funds for defence and internal security.
If the Commission’s recommendations were followed in totality, then in the past five years the fund would have accumulated more than two lakh crore rupees. While the amount may seem optimistic, we didn’t witness even an effort by the Union in meeting the Commission’s target. There was no public dissent from the Commission’s recommendations or a disagreement about its estimation or mention by the Union about the feasibility of a Defence Fund as understood by the Commission.
b. Defence Fund ‘Abandoned’, Cess Operational
We have no publicly available information whether the concept of Defence Fund has been permanently abandoned. Or Defence Fund as envisaged by the Commission was not agreeable to the Union. We do have a curious situation where the entire idea of a standalone Defence Fund mooted by the Union seems to have been abandoned by it with no explanation. The Commission not only endorsed the idea of a Defence Fund but also provided a roadmap for operationalizing it. But the Union seems to have moved on. And instead, in December 2025, the Union has chosen to levy a Health and National Security Cess to meet defence needs. And the cess name indicates, it is a half measure towards defence needs. All funds raised through the Health and National Security Cess will not be exclusive to defence; a portion will be earmarked towards internal security needs and another portion towards public health. In what proportion will the funds of Health and National Security Cess be divided between defence, internal security, and public health is unknown. And probably will be for life.
II. Public Health
Under Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, public health has been included in the State List. But income tax is the Union’s domain. The Constitution is silent if the Union can collect cess on a subject listed in the State List. The ‘constitutional silence’ on legislative competence on cess has allowed the Union to collect Health and Education Cess over and above the income tax. And the same leeway will probably extend to the Health and National Security Cess.
a. Health and Education Cess
Under the Income Tax Act, 1961 a ‘Health and Education Cess’ is levied and collected on 4% of income tax payable by an assessee. It is a compulsory levy on all income taxpayers. Again, how much of the money collected under this cess is allocated to health and education respectively remains unknown. From 2004 to 2018, income taxpayers paid an Education Cess which was levied at 2% and was later increased to 3% of income tax. In 2018, Education Cess was renamed to Health and Education and the rate was increased to 4% of total income tax. The Finance Minister estimated an additional Rs 11,000 crores annually because of the increase in cess rate. But the Finance Minister didn’t specify if the additional amount would be allocated to public health or education or generally the proportion in which the amount will be split between the two. Are we to presume that the additional 1% of the money collected under the Health and Education Cess is allocated to public health? Or is the money now equally divided between public health and education? We don’t have any clarity.
b. Another Health Cess
Despite there being a Health and Education Cess, the Union has chosen to levy the Health and National Securiy Cess. A relevant question is: if there is an already existing health cess, why levy another one? Is the money collected under the pre-existing Health and Education Cess insufficient for public health expenses? If yes, why not levy a dedicated public health cess? And what is the justification of coupling public health with national security? National security encompasses both defence and internal security. It won’t be unreasonable to presume that national security will claim lion’s share of the funds collected under the Health and National Security Cess. And since public health is not the Union’s domain, it is difficult to hold it accountable for utilization of funds for public health. At the same time, it is evident that the Union considers public health important to warrant two ‘partial cesses’. But not enough for public health to deserve a dedicated cess. Two half measures don’t make a full one.
Conclusion
The 15th Finance Commission in its report noted that the Ministry of Defence receives the maximum budget allocation amongst all the Union’s ministries. And yet, the Ministry of Defence argued before the Commission that a separate non-lapsable Defence Fund was necessary to meet increasing need for capital expenses. The Ministry of Home Affairs had also advocated for the Defence Fund since its budgetary allocations were termed as insufficient. And yet for four years – since the Commission provided a roadmap – we haven’t seen any concrete action to make the Defence Fund a reality. Instead, after six years of mooting the idea of Defence Fund and even receiving endorsement from the Commission the Union has decided to levy a cess to partially fund national security expenses. Levying a cess is convenient for the Union as it has to provide no estimate of fund collection, transparency is limited, and there is no clear roadmap of expenses and their allocation. And reliance on yet another cess reveals that national security rhetoric is easier but substantive measures on national security – even on the revenue side – require long, consistent groundwork.
Finally, a general word on cesses. Cesses are a trick on the Constitution. The legal limits on powers to levy cess – of both the Union and States – are hazy. Supreme Court in a few instances has clarified the power to levy cesses in specific contexts, but broader issues remain unresolved and, in some instances, even unknown. It is the legal uncertainty on cesses that allows States to collect a ‘cow cess’ from purchasers of alcohol. It is the same legal uncertainty that allows the Union to levy cess on public health, a State subject. And the same uncertainty allows the Union to levy multiple cesses without appropriate accountability. Despite repeated recommendations from successive Finance Commissions, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, and even some States to reduce the no. of cesses the tax policy landscape in India stubbornly moves in the opposite direction.
In Applause of a Repeal: Place of Supply for Intermediary Services
The Goods and Services Tax Council (‘GST Council’) in its 56th meeting took multiple decisions and made a series of recommendations. The headline, of course, was dominated by the change in tax rates of various goods. An equal, or to my mind, a more substantive reform was the recommendation for omission of Section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017 (‘IGST Act of 2017’).
Section 13 of the IGST Act of 2017 prescribes place of supply rules where location of supplier or location of recipient is outside India. Section 13(2) lays down the general rule and states that the place of supply for the above-mentioned services shall be location of recipient of services. Section 13(8)(b) incorporates a deeming fiction – at variance with the general rule – and states that the place of supply for intermediary services shall be the location of supplier of services. Section 13(8)(b) proved be an interpretive challenge producing a split judgment by the Bombay High Court and subsequently an opinion by a third judge to resolve the interpretive disagreement. And yet, no clear resolution seemed to be in sight. I’ve previously commented both judicial opinions here and here.
In this article, I briefly explain the provision, the interpretive challenge it presented, and the resulting position of law that proved to be unimplementable. I argue that interpretive approach adopted by the third judge – of the Bombay High Court – in upholding constitutional validity of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017 was not incorrect. But, it resulted in a legal position that resembled a riddle wrapped inside an enigma. I conclude that the impending omission of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017 is a step in the right direction. It will provide much needed clarity for GST liabilities of intermediary services. And the omission aligns with a core feature of GST – a destination-based tax. Finally, the omission reduces an unnecessary complexity in IGST Act of 2017. While one of the Revenue Department’s arguments was that Section 13(8)(b) was introduced for purpose of collecting additional revenue; removing it introduces more simplicity which may prove to be a more meaningful reform of GST in the long run.
‘Exceptional’ Nature of Section 13(8), IGST Act of 2017
Section 13(2) of the IGST Act of 2017 lays down the default rule to determine place of supply for services where location of either supplier or recipient is outside India. The location of recipient of services is the default place of supply as per Section 13(2). Section 13(8) contains exceptions to the above rule. Section 13(8)(b) states that for intermediaries, the place of supply shall be the location of supplier of services. Thus, if an intermediary with a registered office in Bombay supplies intermediary services to a recipient located outside India, the place of supply shall be Bombay. But wouldn’t a supply of intermediary services to a recipient outside India amount to export of services and thus outside the net of GST? Ideally, yes. But the deeming fiction under Section 13(8)(b) was introduced precisely to levy tax on export of intermediary services by deeming it to be a domestic service. This was just the first level of complication.
Section 8(2) of the IGST Act of 2017 states that:
.. supply of services where the location of the supplier and the place of supply of services are in the same State or same Union territory shall be treated as intra-State supply:
In the above example, the location of supplier and place of supply is Bombay, State of Maharashtra. And as per the mandate of Section 8(2) of the IGST Act of 2017, the supply shall be treated as an intra-State supply. What is the implication of the latter?
Under GST laws, an intra-State supply is subjected to Central Goods and Services Tax (‘CGST’) + State Goods and Services Tax (‘SGST’). The latter is collected by the State if the place of supply is its jurisdiction. In the above example, the SGST component would be levied and collected by the State of Maharashtra under its State-level GST law. Now, we enter the next level of complication.
Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution states that no law of a State shall impose, or authorize the imposition of, a tax on the supply of goods or of services or both, where such supply takes place in the course of the export of the goods or services or both out of the territory of India.
The embargo placed by Article 286(1)(b) in this context meant that States cannot levy SGST on intermediary services. Why? Because the intermediary services provided by a supplier from India to a recipient outside India are export of services. Section 13(8)(b) via deeming fiction, shifted the place of supply of export of services and deemed it to be a domestic transaction. But a statute cannot incorporate a deeming fiction that empowers State to levy tax beyond the constitutional boundary marked by Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution.
The deeming fiction contained in Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017 was the subject of a constitutional challenge. And the resulting judicial opinions did not make the legal position any better.
A Split Judgment of the Bombay High Court
In Dharmendra M. Jani v Union of India, the Bombay High Court delivered a split judgment. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017 violated Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution and was unconstitutional. He noted the extra-territorial effect being attempted via Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017 ran counter to a fundamental principle of GST, i.e., it is a destination-based consumption tax. Justice Abhay Ahuja though disagreed and – by applying a convoluted logic – held that Section 8(2) of the IGST Act of 2017 is inapplicable to the transaction of an intermediary providing services to a recipient located abroad. He also stated that the Parliament has the power to determine place of supply for inter-State supplies under Article 246A read with Article 269A of the Constitution. And thus, upheld that vires of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017 by conveniently ignoring Article 286 of the Constitution.
The obvious result of this interpretive disagreement was a stalemate.
Opinion of Justice G.S. Kulkarni: An ‘Unimplementable’ Legal Position
In view of the split judgment of the Division Bench, the proceedings of case were referred to Justice G.S. Kulkarni. And he issued a peculiar opinion in Dharmendra M. Jani v Union of India. Though to be fair to him, the peculiarity emerged largely from the deeming fiction contained in Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017. He was tasked with unravelling a knot that could have no simple or elegant result.
Justice Kulkarni accepted that an intermediary service provided by a taxpayer located in India to a recipient located in a foreign jurisdiction amounted to export of services as defined under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act of 2017. And that by virtue of Section 8(2) of the IGST Act of 2017 an export service was deemed to be an intra-State supply of service. But since an intra-State supply is subjected to tax under the CGST Act of 2017 and relevant State GST Act of 2017; Justice Kulkarni added that reading Section 13(8)(b) of the with Section 8(2) amounted to reading a provision of the IGST Act of 2017 into other GST statutes. He observed:
… that the fiction which is created by Section 13(8)(b) would be required to be confined only to the provisions of IGST Act, as there is no scope for the fiction travelling beyond the provisions of IGST Act to the CGST and the MGST Acts, as neither the Constitution would permit taxing of an export of service under the said enactments nor these legislations would accept taxing such transaction.
Justice Kulkarni was clear in one crucial respect: the domain of IGST Act of 2017 was separate – inter-State supplies. CGST Act of 2017 and State-level GST laws also operated in their own respective domains – intra-State supplies. In the absence of a specific incorporation of provision of one statute in another – ideally introduced by the legislature expressly – the provisions of the IGST Act of 2017 cannot by a process of interpretation be applied to other GST statutes.
Based on his above reasoning and understanding of the legislative landscape in GST, Justice Kulkarni concluded that operation of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017 was to be confined only to the IGST Act of 2017. But he refused to term the provision as unconstitutional. Justice Kulkarni, by upholding the vires of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017, resolved the stalemate caused by the split judgment. However, it presented the challenge of implementing his opinion. How to confine Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017 only to the IGST Act of 2017?
If the fiction of Section 13(8)(b) was to be confined only to the IGST Act of 2017, it would mean intermediary services exported to other countries could only be subjected to IGST. But IGST is levied only on inter-State supplies. Or imports which are deemed to be inter-State supplies. So, would Justice Kulkarni’s opinion mean that the Union would now levy IGST on export of intermediary services? Such a levy would be diametrically opposite to the underlying policy of levying IGST only on inter-State supplies or imports. Also, wouldn’t levying IGST defeat the fiction contained in Section 8(2) of the IGST Act of 2017? As per Section 8(2) if place of supply and location of supplier are in the same State, the supply is an intra-State supply. But States cannot levy SGST on such supplies by virtue of the opinion of Justice Kulkarni. So, would the net result be that an export of service that is treated as an intra-State supply will be subjected to IGST? If yes, it would not only challenge but practically defeat all fundamental principles that inform the design of GST. One way out of this puzzle would have been to amend the relevant provisions of CGST Act of 2017, and relevant State-level GST laws and specifically incorporate Section 8(2) and Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017 in such legislations. It would address the issue highlighted by Justice Kulkarni but would perhaps risk make the provision even more complex. It is unknown if the option to amend the provisions was seriously considered by the GST Council.
Irrespective, Justice Kulkarni while did not hold Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017 to be unconstitutional; his peculiar – and internally consistent logic – resulted in making the provision unimplementable. At the very least an appropriate amendment to the relevant provisions was needed to levy tax under the deeming fiction contained in Section 13(8)(b).
GST Council Recommends Repeal of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017
In the face of such a challenge, the GST Council perhaps thought that a repeal of the provision is the best option. But what we don’t know – at least for now – is the precise reason why repeal of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017 was recommended by the GST Council. Was it truly because the provision has become ‘implementable’? Or is it because an alternate and ‘implementable’ provision to levy tax on cross-border intermediary services is in the works? If one vital reason for incorporation of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017 was to collect additional tax, is that reason abandoned for good? I guess we will have to wait until at least the minutes of the 56th meeting of the GST Council are made public.
Section13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017: Repeal Recommended in December 2017
We currently do not know the reasons why the GST Council recommended repeal of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017. However, we do know that a suggestion for repeal was made previously but was not adhered to by the Union and States. In December 2017, a report of the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce was laid before the Rajya Sabha. The 139th Report titled ‘Impact of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on Exports’ made various recommendations for changes to GST from the perspective of promoting exports. One of the recommendations in the Report specifically stated:
The Government may also cause amendment to section 13(8) of the IGST Act to exclude ‘intermediary’ services and make it subject to the default section 13(2) so that the benefit of export of services would be available. (para 15.3)
The Committee reasoned that since GST was a destination-based tax, the place of supply should as per the default rule under Section 13(2), i.e., location of the recipient of services. And the amendment to Section 13(8) of the IGST Act of 2017 would ensure that the intermediary services provided from India to foreign recipients are treated as exports and receive an exemption from the levy of IGST.
The recommendation of the Committee was based on sound logic. Section 13(8)(b) militated not only against the destination-based character of GST; it also stretched the concept of a deeming fiction too far. By treating an export of intermediary service as an intra-State supply of service, the attempt to gain more revenue created a set of complications that the Revenue Department did not anticipate. Or maybe the Revenue Department was blinded by the thirst for additional revenue.
A Welcome Repeal
Overall, the GST Council’s recommendation for repeal of Section 13(8)(b) is welcome – to some extent – preserves the integrity of GST as a destination-based tax. At the same time, the repeal will reduce an unnecessary complexity from the GST laws, making compliance with and comprehension of place of supply rules easier. As for potential loss of revenue. I think reduced complexity in tax laws only tends to promote business activities. If not directly and immediately, at least in an incidental manner. And reduced complexity in tax laws is always beneficial for revenue collections in the long run. Export of intermediary services, on principle, should not be within the remit of GST since it is a destination-based tax. A deviation from the basic character of GST should be based on sound justification and sounder reasons. Collection of more revenue was a less-than-ideal reason to incorporate and continue with Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act of 2017. A more compelling reason seems to have prevailed even if we yet don’t know the precise reason that motivated the GST Council’s recommendation.
Time Restraint on Power of Provisional Attachment under GST
Introduction
The Supreme Court in Kesari Nandan Mobile v Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (‘Kesari Nandan Mobile’) held that an order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act of 2017’) cannot extend beyond one year. A plain reading of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act of 2017 reveals that every provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after expiry of one year. However, Section 83(2) doesn’t expressly prohibit renewal of an attachment order after expiry of one year.
In Kesari Nandan Mobile, the Revenue Department after expiry of one year issued a new attachment order terming it as ‘renewal’ of the previous attachment order. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the assessee’s challenge to ‘renewal’ of the attachment order. The Gujarat High Court provided two major reasons:
first, prima facie the assessee was engaged in supply of bogus invoices and claiming Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) based on those invoices. In view of the assessee’s conduct, the Gujarat High Court held that the order of provisional attachment cannot be said to cause any harassment to the assessee;
second, the Gujarat High Court added that under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act of 2017, there was no embargo to issue a new provisional attachment order after lapse of the previous attachment order. And that a provisional attachment order passed after one year was intended to safeguard the revenue’s interest and was not in breach of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act of 2017.
The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s decision by interpreting Section 83(2) in favor of the assessee. The Supreme Court referred to comparable legislations – Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act, 1961’) as well as Customs Act, 1962 and The Central Excise Act, 1944 – and noted that the authorities can renew an order of provisional attachment only when a statute expressly provides for it. But, if the statute does not expressly confer a power for extension of provisional attachment, the executive ‘cannot overreach the statute’.
In this article, I argue that the Supreme Court in Kesari Nandan Mobile has added a welcome restraint on the Revenue Department’s power of provisional attachment by correctly interpreting Section 83(2) of the CGST Act of 2017. I further suggest that the Supreme Court in the impugned case reinforced the legal framework on provisional attachment elaborated in in M/S Radha Krishan Industries v The State of Himachal Pradesh(‘Radha Krishan Industries’). The Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries was categorical that the power of provisional attachment was ‘draconian in nature’ with serious consequences. And the rights of assessees against such a power were valuable safeguards that needed protection. The Supreme Court in Kesari Nandan Mobile builds on the foundation laid in Radha Krishan Industries and expressly states that provisional attachment is only a pre-emptive measure and not a recovery mechanism.
Radha Krishan Industries on Provisional Attachment
The Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries noted that the legislature was aware of the draconian nature of provisional attachment and serious consequences that emanate from it. And use of power of provisional attachment is predicated on specific statutory language used in Section 83 of the CGST Act of 2017. Interpreting Section 83(1) of the CGST Act of 2017, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Commissioner must only issue an order of provisional attachment if it is necessary to do so and not because it was practical or convenient. Necessity of protecting the interest of the revenue is the fountainhead reason that triggers the power of provisional attachment.
Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries also interpreted Section 83(1) of the CGST Act of 2017 alongside Rule 159 of the CGST Rules of 2017. The latter provided detailed procedure and rights of assessee’s vis-à-vis provisional attachment. The Supreme Court specifically interpreted Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules and held that it provided two procedural entitlements to the person whose property was attached: first, the right to file an objection on the ground that the property was not or is not liable to be attached; second, an opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court underlined the importance of these rights and dismissed the Revenue Department’s stance that the right to file objections was not accompanied by a right to be heard.
Finally, in Radha Krishan Industries, the Supreme Court took umbrage that a previous attachment order against the assessee was withdrawn by the Revenue Department after considering representations of the assessee; but a subsequent order of provisional attachment was passed on the same grounds. The Supreme Court observed that unless there was a change in circumstances it was not open to the Revenue Department to pass another order of provisional attachment. While this observation of the Supreme Court was not in the context of outer time limit, it laid down the law that even if a new provisional attachment order is issued within one year, the onus is on the Revenue Department to prove that there was a change in circumstances that necessitated a new order.
It is in the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s above observations in Radha Krishan Industries on provisional attachment that we need to understand the issue of time restraint addressed in Kesari Nandan Mobile.
Supreme Court Adds Time Restraint
In Kesari Nandan Mobile, the Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether an order of provisional attachment can be issued after expiry of one year of issuance of the previous attachment order. The Supreme Court noted that issuance of an order of provisional attachment after one year cannot be justified on the ground that it is not prohibited under a legislative or executive instrument. The Supreme Court added three more reasons to support its conclusion that provisional attachment cannot take place after expiry of one year:
First, the ‘complete absence of any executive instruction’ that is consistent with the legislative policy of allowing renewal of orders of provisional attachment after expiry of one year.
Second, the Supreme Court reasoned that Section 83(2) of the CGST Act of 2017 must be interpreted in a manner that does not reduce it to a dead letter. As per the Supreme Court, conceding to the Revenue Department’s argument of allowing renewal of provisional attachment after expiry of one year would make Section 83(2) otiose. The Supreme Court – impliedly invoked Radha Krishan Industries – and held that Section 83(1) conferred a draconian power and Section 83(2) should not be interpreted to ‘confer any additional power over and above the draconian power’ upon the lapse of one year envisaged under Section 83(2).
Third, the Supreme Court further observed that issuance of a fresh provisional attachment order on substantially the same grounds as previous one would be in disregard to the safeguard provided under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act of 2017. In Radha Krishan Industries the Supreme Court had disallowed issuance of a fresh provisional attachment order on similar grounds as the previous order. But the Supreme Court’s primary objection was that the new provisional attachment order was issued despite there being no change in facts. However, in Kesari Nandan Mobile, the Supreme Court expressed concern that issuance of new order after expiry of one year may lead to continuous issuance of provisional attachment under the garb of renewal and would be contrary to a plain reading of Section 83(2).
The Supreme Court’s observations in Kesari Nandan Mobile are an important win for taxpayer protection, a plain reading of tax statutes, and a welcome restraint on the Revenue Department’s power. The Gujarat High Court’s decision was influenced by dishonest conduct of the taxpayer. Ideally, the taxpayer’s conduct should not intervene in plain and strict reading of the tax statutes unless the context warrants otherwise. In the impugned scenario, there was little reason for the Gujarat High Court to interpret Section 83(2) in a way that provided additional powers to the Revenue Department. Especially when the powers in question are intrusive and can cause permanent damage to the assessee’s business.
Incongruity Between Section 83(2) and Rule 159(2)
The Supreme Court in Kesari Nandan Mobile also took note of the incongruity between Section 83(2) of the CGST Act of 2017 and Rule 159(2) of CGST Rules of 2017. The former provides that every order of provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after expiry of one year. Rule 159(2) in turn provides that an order provisional attachment shall cease to have effect only when the Commissioner issues written instructions. Thus, even after expiry of one year the provisional attachment continues unless written instructions are issued by the Commissioner. The Supreme Court noted that the incongruity had been brought to the notice of the GST Council and an amendment to Rule 159(2) was proposed. The amendment to Rule 159(2) will provide that a provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after one year or from the date of order of the Commissioner, whichever is earlier.
But even though the proposed amendment – though approved by the GST Council – has not been effectuated, the Supreme Court held that it is important that Section 83(2) is complied with strictly. Implying that an order of provisional attachment should not extend beyond one year.
Conclusion
The power of provisional attachment is certainly intrusive, but at the same time necessary. The necessity stems from preventing an eventual frustration of the tax demand because the assessee has disposed of their properties. At the same time, as courts have reminded the Revenue Department: the power of provisional attachment is not a recovery measure. It is temporary until the investigation is over. And failure to complete the investigation or recover tax cannot be used as a cover to extend the duration of provisional attachment beyond the statutory mandate. And each time, the Revenue Department must be mindful of the consequences that provisional attachment entails and its disruption to assessee’s business and profession.
Parallel Proceedings under GST: Supreme Court Misses an Opportunity
Introduction
Recently, the Supreme Court in M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd v Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr (Armour Security case) clarified scope of the terms ‘proceedings’ and ‘same subject matter’ used in Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act of 2017). The need to clarify the import of both phrases was necessary to ensure that taxpayers are not subjected to parallel proceedings by the Union and State GST officers on the same subject matter.
The judgment largely succeeds in earmarking the scope of both phrases but feels like a missed opportunity.
In this article, I suggest that Armour Security case offered the Supreme Court a chance to elucidate on the inter-relatedness of various proceedings under CGST Act of 2017. Instead, the Supreme Court focused narrowly only on Section 6(2)(b) and eschewed a broader examination of inter-dependency of various provisions of the CGST Act of 2017. I also argue that the Supreme Court’s guidelines are not a substantive contribution to the challenge of preventing parallel proceedings. GST is the first time that both the Union and States have jurisdiction over the same taxpayer base. Overlaps, frictions, and disputes in administrative actions of both entities are expected and addressing them will require time, deft adjudication, and interpretive balance. Broad guidelines for tax administration wherein courts urge respective tax authorities to ‘communicate with each other’ is a simplistic approach to a novel and complex issue.
Scope and Aim of Section 6(2)(b), CGST Act of 2017
Section 6 of the CGST Act of 2017 performs two crucial roles in GST administration:
first, Section 6(1) ensures ‘cross empowerment’ wherein officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorized to be the proper officers for the purposes of the CGST Act of 2017 as well. This ensures that appointment and orders of proper officers have effect under both the Union and State GST laws simultaneously.
second, Section 6(2)(b) ensures a ‘single interface’ for the taxpayer by providing:
where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under this Act on the same subject matter. (emphasis added)
Section 6(2)(b) serves a salutary purpose of ensuring that a taxpayer is not subjected to overlapping investigations by two different authorities and is accountable to only one authority, i.e., there is a ‘single interface’ for the taxpayer. But ensuring a single interface is not as straightforward. The Supreme Court in Armour Security case had to interpret the phrases ‘proceedings’ and ‘same subject matter’ to clarify the powers of officers and various actions that they are allowed or restrained from initiating against a taxpayer.
Issuance of Summons is not Initiation of Proceedings
In the impugned case, Armour Security had received a show cause notice (‘SCN’) under Section 73 of the CGST Act of 2017. The SCN raised a demand for tax, interest, and penalty for excess claim of ITC. Approximately three months later the premises of Armour Security were searched by another authority. Armour Security subsequently received summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act of 2017 requiring one of its directors to produce relevant documents. Armour Security challenged the latter on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction in view of Section 6(2)(b).
The Supreme Court in Armour Security case clarified that issuance of summons to a taxpayer under Section 70 of the CGST Act of 2017 does not amount to initiation of proceedings. The Supreme Court endorsed the view of the Allahabad High Court in GK Trading v Union of India & Ors where it was held that Section 70 of the CGST Act of 2017 empowers a proper officer to issue a summon to obtain evidence or document in any inquiry. The High Court added that the use of the word ‘inquiry’ in Section 70 had a specific connotation and was not synonymous with use of the word “proceedings” used in Section 6(2)(b) of Uttar Pradesh GST Act (pari materia with Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017).
The Supreme Court reasoned that summons do not culminate an investigation but are merely an information gathering device during an ‘inquiry’ to determine if proceedings should be initiated against the taxpayer. If and any information received consequent to summons can influence initiation of proceedings. Thus, the Supreme Court correctly held that issuance of summons does not amount to proceedings. In stating the above, the Supreme Court largely reiterated the reasoning and conclusion of the Allahabad High Court. But let’s suppose proceedings against a taxpayer are pending before the Union GST officers. During the pendency, State GST officers issue summons to the taxpayer. And the latter discover new information as part of their inquiry; information that justifies initiation of proceedings. Wouldn’t pending proceedings before the former constrain the latter from initiating proceedings against the latter? It would defeat the entire purpose of obtaining the information via summons. In such a situation, it seems the State GST officers can only transfer the information that they obtained to the Union GST officers who initiated the proceedings.
‘Proceedings’ Galore under CGST Act of 2017
In interpreting the scope of ‘proceedings’, the Supreme Court chose to focus only on Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017. The Supreme Court’s narrow lens on Section 6(2)(b) is a defensible judicial choice but has left a few issues unaddressed. I will take two examples from the CGST Act of 2017 to highlight the crucial nature of inter-relatedness of various proceedings.
First, let me cite Section 83 of the CGST Act of 2017 which states:
Where, after the initiation of any proceeding under Chapter XII, Chapter XIV or Chapter XV, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in writing, attach provisionally, any property. Including bank account, belonging to the taxable person … (emphasis added)
Chapter XIV of the CGST Act of 2017 contains Section 70 which empowers a proper officer to summon any person. Chapter XII also contains Section 67 empowering a proper officer to conduct inspection, search and seizure. So, it is not unreasonable to deduce that as per Section 83(1) cited above, issuance of summons and conduct of inspection, search and seizure amounts to proceedings. Initiation of either of the two will satisfy the pre-condition of exercising the power of provisional attachment under Section 83(1).
So, after Armour Security case, this is the position: issuance of summon under Section 70 of the CGST Act of 2017 does not amount to initiation of ‘proceedings’ under Section 6(2)(b); but as per Section 83(1), issuance of summons continues to be a ‘proceeding’. Not only is the taxpayer liable to respond to the summons, but the taxpayer becomes susceptible to provisional attachment immediately after issuance of summons. The current position of law is unlikely to be a respite for the taxpayer.
Second, Section 66 of the CGST Act of 2017 empowers an officer not below an Assistant Commissioner to direct a special audit ‘at any stage of scrutiny, inquiry, investigation or any other proceedings before him’. Does issuance of a summon satisfy the pre-condition for a special audit under Section 66 too? Section 66 is under Chapter XIII of the CGST Act of 2017, so we can argue that proceedings under this provision does not have the same meaning as ascribed to it under Section 6(2)(b) or Section 83(1). And that the Armor Security case needs to be read narrowly. But there is no clear or definitive answer yet.
The term ‘proceedings’ has been used in several places in different contexts throughout the CGST Act of 2017. One can argue that the context of the provision may alter the meaning of the term ‘proceeding’ and the Supreme Court’s observations in Armour Security case must be understood solely in the context of Section 6. It is a fair argument but does not set aside the possible interpretive disagreements that may arise. Not the least because of the inter-related nature of various proceedings under the CGST Act of 2017 – an issue that the Supreme Court chose to not address.
Scope of ‘Same Subject Matter’
The bar against parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017 is only regarding ‘the same subject matter.’ The meaning of same subject matter thus acquiring a crucial role in preventing parallel proceedings. The Supreme Court in the impugned case was clear that proceedings are initiated only on issuance of SCN. And it is only in a SCN that various grounds and challenges alleged against an assessee are penned down for the first time. Based on its above observations about SCN, the Supreme Court concluded that:
The expression “subject matter” contemplates proceedings directed towards determining the taxpayer’s liability or contravention, encompassing the alleged offence or non-compliance together with the relief or demand sought by the Revenue, as articulated in the show cause notice through its charges, grounds, and quantification of demand. Accordingly, the bar on the “same subject matter” is attracted only where both proceedings seek to assess or recover an identical liability, or even where there is the slightest overlap in the tax liability or obligation. (para 86)
Thus, same subject matter is determined on the basis that an authority has already proceeded on an identical tax or offence and the demand or relief sought subsequently is identical.
The Supreme Court’s delineation of what constitutes the same subject matter flows logically from its identification of issuance of SCN as the initiation of proceedings against an assessee. And it is the demand mentioned in a SCN that will be the reference point to determine if the latter set of proceedings are on the same subject matter.
There is little to dispute about the Supreme Court’s interpretation of scope and meaning of the ‘same subject matter’. But whether the above understanding will be applied appropriately – by GST officers and courts – to various fact situations will only be known in future.
Supreme Court’s Guidelines
The Supreme Court did not stop at interpreting the term proceedings and same subject matter. Though the interpretation would have sufficed given the issue involved in the impugned case. The Supreme Court went ahead and issued guidelines in its over eagerness to ensure that parallel proceedings against a taxpayer are avoided. The Supreme Court’s guidelines are perhaps the weakest part of Armour Security case. Mostly, because they were not needed. Additionally, the guidelines are a simplistic take on an issue that requires frequent administrative decisions and co-ordination. A task that the judiciary is not best suited to accomplish. The Supreme Court as part of its guidelines urges the tax authorities to decide inter se who should have jurisdiction over the proceedings against the taxpayer if it comes to their notice that a taxpayer is subjected to parallel proceedings. And enjoins an assessee to bring parallel proceedings to the notice of tax authorities by writing a complaint to have that effect. Equally, the Supreme Court clarified that both authorities have a right to pursue a matter until it is established that it concerns the same liability and demand. In other words, both authorities are allowed to pursue their actions until they can ascertain if they relate to the same subject matter.
Maybe – by way of abundant caution – the Supreme Court felt the need to communicate certain obvious issues to the Revenue Department. But, on balance, it seems that the guidelines are superfluous and could have been easily avoided. The Revenue Department – if it feels necessary – is better positioned to issue suitable guidelines on how to address the issue of parallel proceedings, prevent duplication of efforts, and ensure that the taxpayer is not subject to repeated and unnecessary queries on the same subject matter. There are likely to be finer nuances of dual tax administration that the Revenue Department can appreciate as opposed to a judicial forum. And some of the issues may need time and experience to be ironed out adequately.
Conclusion
The Armor Security case is a welcome addition to the jurisprudence on parallel proceedings. It clarifies some crucial elements regarding proceedings and subject matter. And, at the same time, provides additional guidance to the taxpayers and tax authorities on how to ensure better communication when caught in the crosshairs of multiple proceedings. While the guidelines seem superfluous, the Supreme Court’s narrow focus on Section 6(2)(b) may create a bigger uncertainty. The meaning of ‘proceedings’ used in other provisions of the CGST Act of 2017 can either be aligned with or be at variance with the Armor Security case. Either way, there is no clear answer for now.
The Monsoon of Tax ‘Reform’
It’s raining tax ‘reform’. Income Tax Bill, 2025 (‘IT Bill, 2025’) will soon replace the six decades old Income Tax Act, 1961. Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) will ostensibly be simplified by Diwali of 2025. And we will have a two-tier GST consisting of 5% and 12%, with a ‘special’ tax rate of 40% applicable to select goods and services. Income Tax Return forms are being simplified, money limits for filing appeals across all tax domains are being enhanced to reduce tax litigation. Cumulatively, the changes – we are informed – are part of the larger goal of ushering in ‘Next-Generation Reforms’. There is a lot of activity, but something seems amiss.
Substantive tax reform is amiss.
IT Bill, 2025: Simple Language, Uncertain Policy
The use of simple, comprehensible, and coherent legal language is a goal worth spending thousands of hours. But such an exercise proves to be shallow and limited if the underlying policy is unclear and operating at cross purposes. Is faceless assessment scheme now the default manner of assessment or some aspects of human interaction are to be retained permanently? Do CSR activities deserve an unqualified tax-free status? What is the appropriate manner to levy tax on trusts? If the questions seem too narrow and pointed, what about the broader ones. Do we decisively move to the new tax regime and shed the old tax regime? Do we provide revenue targets to officers, but ensure that they don’t adopt absurd positions? Can we ensure that the Revenue Department does not adopt a position that is contrary to plain language of the statute? Do we repose faith in taxpayers and make policies from that starting point or is the default position otherwise? Should every tax treaty now be necessarily notified or was it just a convenient argument adopted by the Income Tax Department to deny benefits to a handful of taxpayers? I can go on, but you get the gist.
If core income tax policies are in a state of flux, the language to express that policy can only provide limited clarity. Ironically, most clarity emerges in only in provisions which endow powers to the Income Tax Department. This includes powers of search and seizure, powers of arrest, and now that the dust has settled a bit: powers to reopen assessments. Otherwise, use of phrases such ‘tax year’ for ‘assessment year/previous year’ or use of ‘irrespective’ instead of ‘notwithstanding’ is a choice in favor of alternate words, not necessarily clarity. The IT Bill, 2025 may be more readable compared to its predecessor. The unending provisos and explanations may have been removed, redundant provisions to some extent been deleted, and use of legalese comparatively lesser. But improved readability should not be confused with clarity.
GST: Multiple Tax Rates are not THE Enemy
Multiple tax rates in GST only take the heat because they are an obvious and low hanging target on which we like to hang all the flaws of GST. But the truth is that the Union and States cannot express their GST governance in clear and unambiguous terms. Why are purchaser’s dependent on suppliers to file their returns to claim Input Tax Credit? Why is provisional attachment of taxpayer properties so commonplace that courts must intervene repeatedly, and caution about the draconian nature of the power of provisional attachment? What policy is guiding levy of GST on health and life insurance? Why was online gaming target of ludicrous GST claims despite the law being obviously silent on come crucial issues? Why cannot the Revenue Department not digest any loss in courts? Any major loss in courts for the Revenue Department immediately triggers an amendment to nullify the decision. If possible, a through retrospective amendment. You want examples of these amendments? I’ve enlisted some here.
The upward trajectory of GST collections hides the many flaws of GST governance. Instead of undertaking long, painful substantive reform, and building on the many gains of GST, we have chosen to focus on tinkering with GST rates. It is an easy sell on the political front. Come Diwali, it is easy to sell reduction of GST rates on cars and claim brownie points. But does that solve the broader issues caused by multiple tax rates in GST. The classification disputes – though source of occasional amusement – are unlikely to see end of the day until GST magically adopts a single-rate structure. Is revenue neutral rate now completely irrelevant to determine GST tax rates? If GST Compensation Cess is phased out, will the new policy be of no more cesses on GST? Because if the Union and States are simply going to levy ad hoc cesses on narrowed down tax slabs to compensate for revenue loss, we may as well stick with the current tax rates. And, while we at it, can someone tell me: why do gold and precious stones that they deserve a tax rate of their own?
Tax Administration IS Tax Policy
There is a credible viewpoint in tax law scholarship: tax administration IS tax policy. You can understand this pithy quote in any number of ways. First, that tax administration can elevate or bury the most prudent tax policy. Delay in processing bona fide tax refunds can defeat a well-intentioned policy of reducing tax burdens of certain taxpayers. Cancelling GST registrations for sham reasons can defeat the policy of providing registrations within three working days of filing an application of registration. The above viewpoint can also be understood to mean that tax administration is an integral part of tax policy. Or if not integral, tax policy is certainly not distanced from tax administration. And that any tax reform or change in tax policy that does not bring a simultaneous change in tax administration is a flawed, if not a doomed tax reform.
We cannot expect a rewrite of a law or a change in the tax rates to simply reduce unnecessary litigation, improve compliance, or otherwise improve tax governance. We need accompanying changes in attitudes of tax officers which in turn may require a broader systemic change in the administration of our Revenue Departments. Forsaking pedantic interpretation of law, aspiring for tax coherence, letting go of smaller tax demands in the short run for long term gains of simplicity and coherence can be some of the changes. But, as I write and advocate for these changes, I’m already convinced that they will take a long time to be realized. If at all.
Conclusion – Buzzwords Abound
The landscape of tax law and policy is increasingly being populated by buzzwords of no consequence. ‘One Nation, One Tax’ was a slogan that hid the reality that some indirect taxes will survive the implementation of GST. Now the ‘Diwali gift’ of GST tax rates restructuring is being thrown around as if sane tax policy is a largesse of the state and not a basic expectation of taxpayers. Income tax law has a ‘new look’ while it retains its old soul. And, while one cannot grouse political priorities because buzzwords sell, it is vital to understand the substance or the lack of it that hides behinds these quasi-marketing slogans. India’s tax landscape needs reform – deep, wide, and substantive. Anything else is activity, not meaningful change.
Competition Law and the IBC: An Alternate Perspective on the Supreme Court’s Balancing Act
Introduction
Recently, the Supreme Court (‘Court’) in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd v Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors resolved an interpretive uncertainty involving the interface of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) with the Competition Act, 2002. The narrow question before the Court was whether the approval of a resolution plan by the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) must mandatorily precede the approval of the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) under the proviso to Section 31(4), IBC. The proviso states that:
Provided that where the resolution plan contains a provision for combination as referred to in section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the resolution applicant shall obtain the approval of the Competition Commission of India under that Act prior to the approval of such resolution plan by the committee of creditors.
The majority opinion, relying on a plain and literal interpretation, held that prior approval by the CCI was mandatory and not directory. The interpretive disagreement did not arise due to any ambiguity in the provision per se, but due to anxiety about delays in the resolution process. It was argued that mandating the prior approval of the CCI for all resolution applicants, instead of only the successful resolution applicant, would delay the completion of the resolution process under the IBC, and time is of the essence in a resolution process to protect and maximise the value of the corporate debtor’s assets. The issue – before, and even after the Court’s judgment – has been largely looked at from the prism of efficacy of the resolution process under the IBC and the need to respect timelines. Even the resolution professional in the impugned case seems to have interpreted the requirement of prior approval as directory to preserve time.
I suggest that there are alternative ways to examine the issue. First, the prior approval of the CCI ensures respect for the commercial wisdom of the CoC as it prevents an ex-post alteration of the latter’s decision. The above sequence will help preserve the design of the IBC, which entrusts the CoC with the final say on commercial decisions in the resolution process. Second, I propose that insistence on prior approval of the CCI should be viewed as an eligibility requirement for resolution applicants instead of a procedural hurdle. The requirement of the prior approval of the CCI may dissuade insincere resolution applicants, and prevent submission of resolution plans that may crumble at the implementation stage. Cumulatively, both arguments cohere with the framework of the IBC and provide us a better understanding of its aims and procedures.
Respect For Commercial Wisdom Of The CoC
In most cases where petitioners have challenged the CoC’s approval of a resolution plan, courts have invoked the supremacy of the commercial wisdom of the CoC. The policy design of the IBC confers powers on the CoC to take commercial decisions, and courts can only intervene in limited and specific instances. The narrow window for judicial interference with decisions of the CoC has been rightly justified by courts by invoking limited grounds for appeal under the IBC. Courts have, thus, termed decisions of the CoC as being of paramount importance. How does the CoC’s supremacy translate into, and become relevant, in the context of the interface of the IBC and the Competition Act, 2002?
The Court in the impugned case relied on the commercial wisdom of the CoC to observe that the lack of prior approval will dilute the aforesaid design of the IBC. For example, if the CoC approves a resolution plan before it receives approval by the CCI, it would leave open the possibility of the latter suggesting modifications to the resolution plan. Permitting ex-post changes by the CCI would also strike at the finality of the CoC’s decision, and, more pertinently, alter the CoC’s position as the final arbiter of corporate debtors’ destiny. The Court underlined the paramount importance of the commercial wisdom of the CoC and reasoned that it can only be exercised assiduously if the CCI’s approval precedes the CoC’s approval. Otherwise, the CoC would be forced to exercise its commercial wisdom without complete information.
Providing the CoC with the final say on commercial aspects of the resolution plan has remained a core idea since the initial stages of discussion on the IBC. The Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee (‘BLRC’) had noted that one of the flaws of the pre-IBC regime was to have entrusted business and financial decisions to judicial forums. The BLRC opined that it was not ideal to let adjudicatory bodies take commercial decisions as they may not possess the relevant expertise. To overcome the flaws of the pre-IBC regime, the IBC was designed to empower only the CoC to take business decisions, as it comprises of financial creditors who may bear the loss in the resolution process. The bifurcation of roles was clear, the legislature and courts were to control and supervise the resolution process, however, all business decisions were the remit of the CoC, though it would arrive at the decision after consultation and negotiations with the corporate debtor. In a similar vein, the Court in Swiss Ribbons v Union of India noted that the financial creditors, comprising mainly of banks and financial institutions, are from the beginning involved in assessing the viability of the corporate debtor, and are best positioned to take decisions on restructuring the loan and reorganisation of the corporate debtor’s business when there is financial stress.
The resolution applicant also suggested that the CCI’s approval could be sought by the successful applicant after the CoC’s approval but before the NCLT’s approval. First, the suggestion contravenes the plain language of the proviso. Second, the suggestion, if accepted, would still leave open the window of the CCI suggesting amendments to the CoC-approved resolution plan and strike at the IBC’s aim to give the CoC the final say on commercial aspects of the resolution plan.
In fact, the CoC approving a resolution plan which has not received the CCI’s approval would also be in contravention of other provisions of the IBC. The Court specifically mentioned that a resolution plan which contains a provision for combination is incapable of being enforced if it has not secured prior approval of the CCI. Such a plan cannot be approved by the Court as it would violate Sections 30(2)(e), 30(3), and 34(4)(a) of the IBC on grounds of being in contravention of the laws in force. Apart from the above provisions, it may be worth mentioning Section 30(4), which obligates the CoC to approve a resolution plan after considering its feasibility and viability. Clearly, evaluation of the feasibility and viability of a resolution plan must precede the CoC’s approval. The CoC should not be put in a position where it approves a resolution plan and only subsequently considers its feasibility and viability based on the CCI’s opinion, as that would disregard the IBC’s mandate.
Proviso To Section 31(4) As An ‘Eligibility Requirement’
I suggest that the proviso to Section 31(4) should be viewed as an eligibility requirement for the resolution applicant. My suggestion is predicated on an analogy with Section 29A(c). Briefly put, Section 29A(c) declares that a person is ineligible to submit a resolution plan if such person or any other person acting jointly, or in concert with, it has an account classified as a non-performing asset for one year. The proviso removes the ineligibility if the person makes payment of all overdue amounts before the submission of the resolution plan. One of the resolution applicants in Arcelor Mittal India Pvt Ltd v Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors had argued that insistence on the prior payment of overdue amounts would reduce the pool of resolution applicants as their plan may not be eventually approved by the CoC, and that the proviso should be interpreted in a ‘commercially sensible’ manner wherein overdue amounts should be allowed to be paid as part of the resolution plan and not before the submission of the resolution plan.
Justice S.V.M Bhatti, in his dissenting opinion in the impugned case, has attempted to interpret proviso to Section 31(4) in a similar fashion. He has observed that insistence on prior approval by the CCI would limit the number of eligible resolution applicants. Further, he noted that the requirement of prior approval by the CCI raises a question of prudence since the resolution applicant would seek approval of its plan, which may eventually not be acceptable to the CoC.
In Arcelor Mittal, the Court dismissed the above line of arguments and held that the plain language of the proviso to Section 29A(c) makes it clear that the ineligibility is removed if overdue payments are made before the submission of the resolution plan. Making the overdue payments may be worth the while of the applicant as the dues may be insignificant compared to the possibility of gaining control of the corporate debtor. The Court added that it would not disregard the plain language of the proviso to avoid hardship to the resolution applicant. The above reasoning squarely applies to the proviso to Section 31(4) and is more persuasive than the dissenting opinion in the impugned case.
In fact, one could further engage with the argument about the proviso limiting the number of eligible resolution applicants by stating that the mandate of prior approval of the CCI may act as a filtering mechanism and attract only sincere applicants with concrete resolution plans. The receipt of the CCI approval may diminish the possibility of the resolution plan crumbling at the implementation stage due to the inability or disinclination of the resolution applicants to comply with the subsequent conditions that the CCI may impose. Knowledge of the CCI’s stance prior to the approval of the resolution plan will help in setting realistic timelines and conditions for the successful resolution applicant.
Section 31(4) permits the successful resolution applicant to obtain the necessary approvals required under any law for the time being in force, within one year from the date of approval by the adjudicating authority. The proviso to Section 31(4) carves out one exception and states that if the resolution plan contains a provision for combination, the resolution applicant shall obtain the approval of the CCI prior to the approval of such resolution plan by the CoC. The language of the proviso is clear, unambiguous, and the legislative intent is unmistakable. As the Court noted in its majority opinion, courts must respect the ordinary and plain meaning of the language instead of wandering into the realm of speculation. An exception has been made in the proviso wherein resolution applicants need the prior approval of the CCI. To interpret ‘prior’ to mean ‘after’ would amount to the judicial reconstruction of a statutory provision. There is also no room to interpret the requirement of prior approval as being directory and not mandatory. Analogous to the proviso to Section 29A(c), obtaining the prior approval of the CCI may be ‘worth the while’ of the resolution applicants and this would be a minor hardship compared to the possibility of controlling the corporate debtor.
Prior approval by the CCI should be viewed as an eligibility requirement for resolution applicants instead of a procedural burden. Typically, resolution professionals prescribe requirements of net worth, expertise, etc. for resolution applicants. If compliance with such conditions is not viewed as a hurdle, why view a regulatory approval only through the lens of time, as a procedural hurdle? Instead, it is better viewed as a safeguard to prevent future legal hurdles, smoothen the implementation of approved resolution plan, and to preserve the IBC’s design.
Understanding The Anxiety About Delay
The Court, in the impugned case, has cited statistics to blunt the argument on delay. The statistics about the speed of decision-making by the CCI reveal that delays may not be significant. The Court cited the Annual General Report of the CCI for 2022-23, as per which, the average time taken by the CCI to dispose of combination applications was 21 days, and there was no recorded instance of the CCI taking more than 120 days to approve a combination application. The track record of the CCI partly convinced the Court that arguments about delays were exaggerated.
While there is merit in arguing that the insistence on prior approval by the CCI may delay the resolution process, it is important to add two caveats: first, even in cases not requiring the approval of the CCI, timelines of the IBC are not frequently respected for various reasons. This is not to suggest that additional delays would do no harm, but that delays are par for the course even when the CCI’s approval is not required. So, it is not accurate to ascribe the possible delay only to the requirement of the CCI’s prior approval. Second, prior approval by the CCI will be needed in relatively few instances, and thus there is good reason to adopt a relaxed view of timelines in such cases to avoid competition law issues after the CoC has approved the resolution plan. The additional time consumed in seeking the CCI’s approval will be for a valid reason, i.e., to address the interface of the IBC with competition law. The IBC cannot be implemented in a sealed bubble. where no extraneous factor ever influences the speed and progress of the resolution process.
Conclusion
I have tried to establish that once we take a step back from the time-centric arguments, we can cast a different lens on the issue of the interface of competition law and the IBC. We can understand that the decision-making of the CoC, and other procedural requirements also need to be respected to maintain the integrity of the resolution process. Time, despite being vital, cannot solely dictate the entire resolution process. When the resolution process implicates other areas of law, such as competition law, adopting a relatively relaxed approach to the time limits of the IBC may ensure smooth approval and implementation of the resolution plan. In fact, the prior approval of the CCI aligns with the key design of the IBC, which strives to reserve final decisions on the resolution process to the CoC, subject to minimal judicial supervision. If the CCI unpacks and modifies the CoC-approved resolution plans ex-post, it will in fact, undermine the sanctity of the resolution process.
[This post was first published at NLSIR Online in May 2025.]
Service Charge, its Similarity with Tax, and a ‘Double Whammy’ for Consumers: Some Thoughts
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.
Fraudulent Sale is Supply Under GST: Three Errors of the Advance Ruling
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.
