Supreme Court

Time Restraint on Power of Provisional Attachment under GST 

by

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

by

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.  

Shelf Drilling Judgment: A Case of Interpretive Disagreements

by

The Supreme Court in a split judgment left unresolved the long standing issue of interplay between Section 144C-Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act, 1961’). The absence of a clear resolution while not ideal, provides an insight into different interpretive attitudes towards procedural issues in tax. In this article, I make a few broad points on the interpretive approaches both the judges adopted when faced with a question that did not have a clear answer, but at the same time, a question seems to have acquired more complexity than  warranted. 

Issue 

The panoramic question was: whether timelines for ‘specific assessments’ in Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act, 1961’) are independent of or subsumed in the general timelines for assessments provided in Section 153 of the IT Act, 1961? 

Section 144C provides the procedure and timelines for a specific kind of assessments which typically involve foreign companies. If the assessing officer makes any change in the assessment which is prejudicial to the assessee, then Section 144C prescribes a procedure which includes forwarding a draft assessment order to the assessee. If the assessee has any objections after receiving the draft assessment order, it may approach the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’). Section 144C, in turn, empowers DRP to issue binding directions to the assessing officer. And the latter has to complete the assessment as per the said directions. Section 153, in comparison, is a general provision which prescribes timelines for completion of assessments and reassessments. The assessing officer ordinarily has 12 months, after the end of a financial year, to complete any assessment.  

Opinions that do not ‘Converse’ 

In the impugned case, both judges framed the issue identically but answered it in diametrically opposite fashion. The divergent conclusions were a result of the different interpretive approaches adopted by both judges and their differing opinions as to what each of them considered relevant factors to adjudicate the case. The jarring part is that there seems to be no single point of consensus between the two judges. At the same time, while Justice Nagarathna does mention some points of disagreement with Justice SC Sharma’s opinion, the latter does not even mention or even superficially engage with her opinion. And consequently, Justice SC Sharma fails to tell us as to why he disagrees with Justice Nagarathna. It is left for us to arrive at our deductions and conclusions. I indulge in a preliminary attempt at this exercise and identify how both judges approached the issue and interpreted the relevant provisions and their respective reasonings.          

Modes Of Interpretation 

It is trite that tax statutes need to be interpreted strictly. Justice Nagarathna in her opinion went into significant detail about the appropriate interpretive approach in tax law disputes and cited various judicial precedents to lend support to her view of the necessity of strict interpretation. One offshoot of the doctrine of strict interpretation is that if the provision(s) is clear, plain, and unambiguous and inviting only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. It is this interpretive approach that guided her opinion that the issue of interplay between Section 144C-Section 153 was simply of statutory interpretation. She added that courts should not opine about the adequacy of the timelines available to the assessing officer or to the assessee as it would undermine the cardinal principles of tax law interpretation. So, if a strict interpretation of the provisions meant that an assessing officer would have limited time to complete assessments, so be it. It is for the Parliament to look into the adequacy of time available to the officers and assessees, not courts.      

Justice SC Sharma had no qualms – superficial or otherwise – about the need to follow strict interpretation. His approach was of a ‘balancing act’, literally. He clearly says that the Court must be alive to the ‘fine balance’ that needs to be maintained between tax officers having sufficient time to scrutinise income tax returns to prevent tax evasion and the right of assessees to not have their returns scrutinised after a certain amount of time. And in doing so, he stresses on the need for harmonious interpretation, the need to make various provisions of the IT Act, 1961 work. As is wont, a balancing act tends to lead to a half-baked solution. And Justice SC Sharma’s conclusion is one such solution where he concludes that the timelines prescribed in Section 153 are not completely irrelevant to Section 144C. The assessing officer is bound to complete the draft assessment order within the timelines mentioned in Section 153, and not the final assessment order. So he binds the assessing officer to complete half a job within the timeline prescribed by Section 153, but not the complete job. As per him, the final assessment order can be passed even after the limit set of Section 153. This is certainly not a strict interpretation of tax law provisions, but a judge’s subjective view of what is a ‘reasonable time’ for an assessing officer to complete an assessment.  

Relevance of Administrative Inconvenience 

Justice SC Sharma’s opinion is littered with his concern for tax officers of this country and their inability to complete assessments in a short time if the time period under Section 144C is interpreted to be subsumed in the time period provided in Section 153. He stated that in such a scenario, the tax officer will have to work ‘backwards’ and allow for a period of nine months to the DRP. As per Section 144C, if an assessee objects to the draft assessment order and refers it to a DRP, the latter has nine months to issue directions to the officer for completion of assessment and its directions are binding on the assessing officer. So, the assessing officer has to complete the draft assessment order by anticipating that objections may be raised before DRP, else the final assessment may not be completed within the timeline prescribed in Section 153. Justice Sharma was of the opinion that the Parliament ‘could not have conceived’ such a procedure to be followed by an assessing officer. The root cause of his concern was that the time window to complete the final assessment would be ‘negligible’ since ordinarily an assessment is to be completed within 12 months from end of the financial year in which the remand order is received from the tribunal. And this narrow time window, in his view, would ‘result in a complete catastrophe for recovering lost tax.’

Justice Nagarathana, however, dismissed the concern of unworkability of timelines. She said that failure of the assessing officer to meet the statutory timeline cannot be the basis of assuming any absurdity. The Revenue argued that if an assessing officer has to work backwards, the timelines may not be met, leading to an absurdity. I do agree with Justice Nagarathana that if for a specific set of assesses the assessing officers have to work backwards to respect the timelines, it does not make the provisions unworkable or absurd. How is working backwards to accommodate statutory prescribed timelines an absurd position? An assessing officer has to essentially accommodate nine months of time accorded to DRP in Section 144C and issue a draft assessment order accounting for that time. The actual absurdity is in the Revenue’s argument that an assessing officer accounting for the time that DRP may consume is a ground for extending statutory prescribed timelines. 

Also, Justice Nagarathana made it clear that merely because the assessee may opt for raising objections against the draft assessment order and approach the DRP cannot be a factor for increasing the timeline. The assessee cannot be prejudiced for exercising a right prescribed in the statute. Justice SC Sharma’s opinion though suggests that the exact opposite and implies that the assessee exercising the right to file objections and approach DRP is a good reason to extend timelines. And in implying so, he adopts a tenuous position. 

Impact of Non Obstante Clause(s) 

Our tax statutes contain non-obstante clauses galore, but their import and impact is understood differently based on the context. In the impugned case, Justice Nagarathana noted that the context and legislative intent of a non-obstante clause is vital to understand its import. Applying the above dictum, she held that the non-obstante clause in Section 144C(1) was only regarding the special procedure prescribed in the provision and not for the timelines enlisted in Section 153. She elaborated that Section 144C is only applicable to ‘eligible assessees’ and the provision mandates the assessing officer to forward a draft assessment order, while in all other cases a final assessment order is issued directly. Since Section 144C prescribes a special procedure for the eligible assessees, it overrides only those provisions of the IT Act, 1961 which prescribe a different procedure. Section 144C does not override all the provisions of the IT Act, 1961.  

Based on the above reasoning, Justice Nagarathana concluded that  the effect of non-obstante clause of Section 144C(1) is not to override Section 153. But why? This is because as per Justice Nagarathana, the latter was not contrary to the former. She added that if Section 144C is construed to extend the limitation period prescribed under Section 153, it would lead to an ‘absurd result’ as the scope and ambit of two provisions is distinct. She was clear that Section 153 prescribes timelines for assessments and reassessments while Section 144C prescribes procedure for a specific set of eligible assessees. In other words, Section 153 controls the timelines for all assessments while Section 144C controls procedure for specific assessments that may encompass only a limited set of assessees. Thus, both provisions had different scope and were not at odds with each other.  

One can also understand the above interpretive dilemma as an occasion where a judge faced with the relation between a general and specific provision, held that the former should serve the object and aims of the latter. Section 153 is certainly a general provision, and the timelines prescribed in it must be respected by a narrower and more specific provision such as Section 144C. Latter cannot operate at odds with the former and defeat the larger objective of completing assessments within prescribed time periods.  

Justice SC Sharma’s emphasis was on the non-obstante clauses in Section 144C(4) and Section 144C(13) which specifically override Section 153. Both these sub-sections mention the assessing officer’s obligation to pass a final assessment order. Both these sub-sections obligate an assessing officer to pass a final assessment order within one month (approximately) of receiving the assessee’s acceptance and DRP’s directions respectively. Justice Sharma somehow reads into the non-obstante clauses in these two sub-sections the idea that their effect was to only extend the timeline for passing a final assessment order and not the draft assessment order. He concluded that an assessing officer will have to complete the draft assessment order within the limitations stated in Section 153. 

Justice Sharma insisted that the non-obstante clauses must be construed to ‘not defeat’ the working of the IT Act, 1961 and ensure a harmonious construction of both the provisions. However, the real reason was his belief that if timelines of cases in Section 144C were subsumed in Section 153, it would be ‘practically impossible’ to complete the assessments. As discussed above, Justice Nagarathana was clear – and rightly so – that such a belief should have no role in interpretation of tax statutes. Also, Justice Sharma added that the assessing officer only acts in an executing capacity once the draft assessment order is passed, since the no new fresh issues can be raised thereafter. The implication being that the draft assessment order issued under Section 144C is effectively a final assessment order. This is convoluted phrasing and also an inaccurate understanding of assessment orders.      

Use of ‘Internal’ and ‘External’ Aids for Interpretation 

In the context of this discussion, let me say that an internal aid for interpretation can be understood be other provisions of the IT Act, 1961. While an external aid can include the Parliamentary discussions, committee reports, etc. Both the judges referred to external aids in the impugned case and tried to understand the rationale of impugned provisions, especially Section 144C, by citing memorandums and explanatory notes of the relevant finance acts. Justice Nagarathna cited them in significant detail and one can see that her conclusion was influenced by these external aids. The Finance Minister, when introducing the amendment via which Section 144C was inserted in the IT Act, 1961 had mentioned the need to improve climate for tax disputes, expedite the dispute resolution process, and provide an alternate dispute resolution process. Since the assessees that would benefit from Section 144C would primarily be foreign companies, the aim was to signal a more receptive tax environment for foreign investment. If expediting dispute resolution process was one of the aims of Section 144C, one could argue it was a reasonable deduction that timelines of Section 144C were subsumed in timelines of Section 153. Holding otherwise would delay the process instead of expediting it. And Justice Nagarathna was partially influenced by the purpose of introducing Section 144C before arriving at her conclusion.      

Justice SC Sharma’s reliance on external aid was comparatively much more limited. He cited the relevant extracts that explained the need for Section 144C, but his focus was more on the need to harmoniously interpret Section 144C and Section 153. He tried to reason that his conclusions were aimed at making sure the IT Act, 1961 remained workable and absurdities were avoided. He primarily relied on internal aids, i.e., other provisions of the IT Act, 1961 to defend his conclusions that he said were aimed to ensure harmony amongst the various statutory provisions.    

While We Await Another Judicial Opinion  

Until a three-judge bench weighs in with their opinion, the interplay of Section 144C-Section 153 obviously remains without a clear answer. On balance, the reasoning adopted by Justice Nagarathna is more aligned to classical principles of tax law interpretation. But, the Indian Supreme Court has an uneven record in tax law matters and predicting what may happen next is as good as rolling the dice. In recent times, the Supreme Court’s uneven history on tax matters includes but is not limited to providing remedy to the Revenue Department without them even making a request for it. Or adopting gymnast worthy legal fictions and altering the concept of time to ostensibly balance the rights of the Revenue and the assessees. Thus, there is no predicting the outcome of this dispute, though I can go out on a limb and say that the relevant provision(s) maybe amended, and retrospectively so, if the Income Tax Department does not agree with the final verdict. Such amendments are certainly not unheard of!     

Competition Law and the IBC: An Alternate Perspective on the Supreme Court’s Balancing Act

by

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.]

Legislative Intent or Error: Puzzle of Indian Tax Policy

by

Introductory Questions 

Let me start with a question: how does one discover legislative intent in a provision of tax statute? Through a plain reading of the provision or through a subsequent statement by the State’s legal counsel stating its intent? Positivist thinking would point us to the former, and rightly so. A statement, even a sworn statement in a court shouldn’t override what is contained in the statute. Deference to the legislature cannot extend to a point where despite what the statute contains, court interprets the provision based on legislature’s statement explaining its intent. 

The question in your mind may be: why am I asking this question? Well, for those who follow tax developments, you may already know. For others, I’m asking the question in the context of Safari Retreats case and the latest amendment to CGST Act, 2017 via the Finance Act, 2025. 

One key question that the Supreme Court had to answer in Safari Retreats case was: Did the legislature intentionally use the conjunction ‘or’ instead of ‘and’? Or did the legislature commit a mistake? A simple question that acquires tremendous urgency if a taxpayer needs the answer to assess its tax liability which in this was a few crores. 

During the hearing, the State’s counsel argued that use of the conjunction ‘or’ was a legislative error and further pressed that ‘or’ should be read as ‘and’. What should have been the ideal response of the Supreme Court? One view – subscribed by the State – is that Supreme Court should have declared ‘or’ means ‘and’ and interpreted the provision accordingly even if it meant throwing all grammar and interpretive rules out of the court complex. Or was there more justification in the Supreme Court responding the way it did: legislative intent can only be revealed by the legislative text and not by the State counsel’s statement about the text. And in doing so, restrict the amount of deference that courts accord to the legislature in tax laws.   

And equally importantly, how should we respond? Resign to yet another retrospective amendment to a tax statute and raise our hands in exasperation while letting out a huge sigh. Or do we try to understand this entire episode like a puzzle and use it as an example of how Indian State approaches tax policy. I prefer to do the latter, and hence this article.  

‘Or’ Means ‘And’

I’ve commented on the case in detail here and here. In this article, I intend to provide a limited overview of the controversy with an aim to highlight Indian State’s tax policy choices. 

In 2019, the Orissa High Court allowed taxpayer to claim Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) on construction of a shopping mall. In 2024-25, one of State’s arguments before the Supreme Court was that use of ‘or’ instead of ‘and’ was a legislative error. The reason for the argument, from a revenue perspective, was straightforward: it would ostensibly allow the State to block the taxpayer’s ITC claim. But the State was aware of the ‘legislative error’ since 2019, why not correct the error via a legislative amendment and bury the issue instead of making elaborate arguments before the Supreme Court? Commenting on the same the Supreme Court in its judgment observed the following: 

The writ petition in which the impugned decision was rendered is a six-year-old writ petition. If it was a drafting mistake, as suggested by learned ASG, the legislature could have stepped in to correct it. However, that was not done. In such circumstances, it must be inferred that the legislature has intentionally used the expression “plant or machinery” in clause (d) as distinguished from the expression “plant and machinery”, which has been used in several places. (emphasis added) (para 43)

As is evident, the Supreme Court rejected the State’s claim of an error. If use of ‘or’ was indeed an error, there was ample time for the State to step in and rectify it. And its failure to do so, in my books, counts as lack of bona fide. For the Supreme Court it was sufficient to dismiss the entire argument and proceed solely on the basis of what was written in the statute.  

What did the State achieve by not amending the law and correcting what it claimed was a ‘legislative error’? For one, if the Supreme Court had actually ruled that ‘or’ should be read as ‘and’, it would have armed the State with a decision that could have been conveniently used by it to block ITC in the future as well. 

Second, if the Supreme Court refused to interpret ‘or’ to mean ‘and’, the State could have claimed that the decision did not reflect ‘legislative intent’. Both things did happen. The latter is no longer a surprise. Each time the State loses a major tax case, its response is that the judicial decision does not reflect legislative intent. And subsequently, it leads to an amendment of the provision in question. And even more often, the amendment is given retrospective effect.   

Legislative Intent – Legislative Error 

The Supreme Court in its above cited paragraph makes it sufficiently apparent that legislative intent must be reflected through the statute itself. If the State claims that a legislative error crept into the statute, it should have rectified it in the intervening 6 years it had to act on it. 

Legislative intent thus cannot be superimposed on a statute by the State on discovering its error or mistake. That would upset the balance of power in State’s favor and would violate a cardinal rule of tax law interpretation, i.e., strict interpretation of tax statutes is necessary to determine the taxpayer’s liability. 

But does that mean that legislative error can never be acknowledged by courts? Apparently so.

One, there is no telling if an error is truly an error. In Safari Retreats case, the petitioners pointed out that:

In the model GST law, which the GST Council Secretariat circulated in November 2016 for inviting suggestions and comments, the expression “plant and machinery” was used both in clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5). However, while enacting the law, the legislature has advisedly used the expression “plant and machinery” in clause (c) and “plant or machinery” in clause (d) of Section 17(5). Therefore, the intention of the legislature cannot be brushed aside by contending that the use of the word “or” in Section 17(5)(d) is a mistake of the legislature. (para 9)

In such circumstances, who is to know if the legislature intentionally replaced ‘and’ with ‘or’ when finalising the text of the bill or an error crept in while editing the Model law. Presumably only the State can reveal the mystery through detailed document history and accompanying notes on the provisions. But do we want to go down that rabbit hole. Forget us, I doubt the State would like that like that level of transparency in law making. 

Second, it would defeat a core tenet of not just tax law but also law in general. Tax liability is as per the law that exists and not what the law was intended to be. A taxpayer has no way of knowing what the legislature ‘intended’ to enact except by interpreting the provisions as they exist. And if one argues that the legislative debates, and other pre-legislative reports would provide a clue, it is a heavy burden to impose on the taxpayer. Then not only must the taxpayer know the law but also whether the law contains an error or not. Hardly just or fair. And one would argue such a stance is also devoid of common sense.

Puzzle of Indian Tax Policy

Hidden in the steps of Safari Retreats case and its aftermath is the puzzle of Indian tax policy decisions. 

One, why wait for the Supreme Court’s decision and then amend the provision retrospectively? Because beyond the immediate urgency of losing or wining a case, was a question of policy. Do we allow taxpayers to claim ITC on construction of shopping malls when they further rent it for business? While a timely amendment of ‘or’ to ‘and’ may not have answered the question with certainty, it would have provided a clear signal of proactive policy making including correcting errors. Instead, the post-decision amendment reveals a policy of amending laws as per convenience.   

Two, where were the States? Since the entire dispute centred around CGST Act, 2017 we expect response from the Union, but GST is a federal levy. Why didn’t any State openly and persuasively argue for an amendment and perhaps end a long winding litigation? It was only after the Supreme Court’s judgment, that States were visible. But just about. States were on board for the GST Council’s recommendation for amendment. Or at least no State objected to the amendment. So, my impression is that either ALL States were either clueless about the litigation or all of them unanimously approve retrospective amendments to GST laws instead of proactive amendments to thwart resource consuming litigation. Maybe, this is the kind of uniformity that was aimed through GST. 

Third, why file a review after deciding to introduce the amendment? Again, it seems the Court’s stamp of approval or its views on the amendment will prevent sprouting of similar issues from the provision. In this case, though the litigation may not end because even the amendment may not prove enough as courts will still need to interpret the phrase ‘plant and machinery’. But a review seems like a circuitous way of making tax policy when there can be direct and straightforward ways. Only we prefer to be clever by half and like to prevent transparency on fundamental tax policy issues. Else, the State may be held to its word and that is not something it will enjoy. 

Way Forward 

The promise of no retrospective amendments to GST laws was buried long ago. And now it is dead. We can only hope for a more sane approach to tax disputes and a saner reaction to court decisions that are not in the State’s favor. Else, the familiar cycle of dispute, decision, amendment will continue till perpetuity until one fine day we feel the need to ‘simplify’ GST by removing all the Provisos and Explanations which were added via numerous reactive amendments.    

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

by

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

Part I: Om Prakash Judgment and Customs Act, 1962 

Om Prakash Judgment 

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

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

Amendments to Customs Act, 1962 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 246A Has a Broad Scope 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reason to Believe and Judicial Review  

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Bela M. Trivedi’s Concurring Opinion  

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

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

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

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

Conclusion 

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

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

            

Safari Retreats: Supreme Court Adopts a ‘Strict’ Stance

by

The Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in the Safari Retreats case a few days ago. The judgment involved interpretation of Section 17(5), CGST Act, 2017, specifically clauses (c) and (d) read with two Explanations contained in the Section. The judgment has been greeted with a mixed response by tax community with some commending the Supreme Court for adhering to strict interpretation of tax statutes while others criticizing it for misreading the provision and by extension legislative intent. While a lot of ink has already been spilled in writing comments on the judgment, I think there is room for one more view. 

In this article, I describe the judgment, issues involved and argue that the Supreme Court in the impugned judgment identified the issue clearly, applied the doctrine of strict interpretation of tax statutes correctly, and any criticism that the Court misread legislative intent doesn’t have strong legs. At the same time, the judgment is not without flaws. Finally, it is vital to acknowledge that the judgment is an interpretive exercise in abstract as it didn’t decide the case on facts and remanded the matter to the High Court with instructions to decide the matter on merit ‘by applying the functionality test in terms of this judgment.’ (para 67) It is in application of the functionality test where implications of the impugned judgment will be most visible.   

Introduction 

The writ petition before the Supreme Court was a result of Orissa High Court’s decision wherein it read down Section 17(5)(d). I’ve discussed the High Court’s judgment here, but I will recall brief facts of the case for purpose of this article: the petitioner was in the business of construction of shopping malls. During construction, the petitioner bought raw materials as inputs and utilized various input services such as engineering and architect services. The petitioner paid GST on the inputs and input services. In the process, the petitioner accumulated Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) of Rs 34 crores. After completion of construction of the shopping mall, the petitioner rented premises of the shopping mall and collected GST from the tenants. The petitioner was not allowed to claim ITC against the GST collected from the tenants. The Revenue Department invoked Section 17(5)(d), CGST Act, 2017 to block the petitioner’s ITC claim. It is worth reproducing the relevant Section 17(5)(d) and (e), as they form nucleus of the impugned judgment. 

17. Apportionment of credit and blocked credits.— 

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

(c) works contract services when supplied for construction of an immovable property (other than plant and machinery) except where it is an input service for further supply of works contract service; 

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

Explanation.––For the purposes of clauses (c) and (d), the expression ―construction includes re-construction, renovation, additions or alterations or repairs, to the extent of capitalisation, to the said immovable property; 

Another Explanation is appended to Section 17, after Section 17(6), which states as follows: 

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

  1. (i)  land, building or any other civil structures; 
  2. (ii)  telecommunication towers; and 
  3. (iii)  pipelines laid outside the factory premises. 

The Revenue’s argument was that the petitioner constructed an immovable property, i.e., a shopping mall on his own account and ITC in such a situation is blocked under Section 17(5)(d). The Orissa High Court read down Section 17(5)(d) and allowed the petitioner to claim ITC by reasoning that denial of ITC would lead to cascading effect of taxes. The High Court crucially did not examine if the shopping mall could be categorized in the exemption of ‘plant or machinery’. While the High Court’s judgment is not an exemplar of legal reasoning, it triggered a debate on the permissibility of petitioner’s ITC claim and the Supreme Court has clarified some issues through its judgment.  

Arguments 

Petitioners 

The Supreme Court, in the initial pages of the judgment, laments that the arguments in the case were repetitive and cajoles lawyers to make brevity their friend. (para 6) I will try and summarise the arguments from both sides by paying heed to the above suggestion.  

Petitioners argued that denial of ITC under Section 17(5)(d) amounted to treating unequals equally. Petitioners argued that renting/leasing of immovable property cannot be treated the same as sale of immovable property. There is no intelligible differentia since the transactions are different. Latter does not attract GST while the former is subject to GST. There is no break in chain in case of petitioners since both input and output are taxable under GST and blocking of ITC will lead to cascading effect of taxes and defeat a core objective of GST. It was further argued that the provision suffered from vagueness since the phrase ‘on its own account’ was not defined, and use of two different phrases – ‘plant or machinery’/ ‘plant and machinery’ – and their meanings were not sufficiently clarified by the legislature. 

A ‘three-pronged’ argument of the petitioner stated that claim of ITC could be allowed without reading down Section 17(5)(d). The three prongs were:  

First, clause (d) exempts ‘plant or machinery’ from blocked credit while the Explanation after Section 17(6) is applicable to ‘plant and machinery’. Thus, the Explanation is inapplicable to the clause (d). This point is further underlined by use of the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ in clause (c) indicating that the two phrases – ‘plant and machinery’/‘plant or machinery’ are different. Explanation to Section 17(6) effectively states that land, building and other civil structure cannot form ‘plant and machinery’; if the Explanation cannot be applied to clause (d) a building such as a shopping mall can be categorized as a ‘plant’ on which ITC is not blocked.  

Second, it was argued that malls, hotels, warehouses, etc. are plants under Section 17(d). Stressing on strict interpretation of statutes and need to avoid cascading effect of taxes, the petitioners specifically added that the term ‘plant’ should include buildings that are an ‘essential tool of the trade’ with which the business is carried on. But, if it is merely a ‘setting within which the business’ is carried on, then the building would not qualify as a plant.

Third, it was argued that supply of service under Section 7 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Clause 2 of Schedule II includes leasing and renting of any building including a commercial or residential complex. And ITC accumulated on construction of such property should be available against such service. This argument seems to address the issue of blocking of ITC under Section 17(5) indirectly and advocated for a seamless availability of ITC. But this argument side steps the fact that a transaction can amount to supply under Section 7, and yet ITC on it can be blocked under Section 17. 

The first argument though was the most crucial argument, as the latter part of this article will examine.  

The State

The State’s arguments oscillated from sublime to the ridiculous. The State argued that  classification of the petitioners with assessees who constructed immovable property and sold it was based on intelligible differentia. And the intelligible differentia was that both kinds of asssessees ‘created immovable property’. The State also mentioned that there was a break in the chain of tax, but this is not true for petitioner since renting of premises in the shopping mall was taxable. The petitioners were paying GST on their inputs and collecting GST on the output, i.e., renting of premises of shopping mall. The break in tax chain, as the petitioners rightly argued was only when an immovable property is sold after receiving a completion certificate as in such transactions output is not subject to GST. Further, State stressed that ITC is not a fundamental or a constitutional right and thus State has the discretion to limit the availability/block ITC. While ITC not being a right is now a well-established legal position, the State’s justification for blocking ITC in this case lacked an express and cogent reason.  

The State further argued, unsuprisingly, that the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ should be interpreted to mean ‘plant and machinery’. As per the State, it was not uncommon to interpret ‘or’ to mean ‘and’. I’m terming this argument as unsurprising because this is not a novel argument in taxation matters and the State even had a few authorities to back this view. The State though did admit that the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ occurs only once in Chapters V and VI of the CGST Act, 2017 while the phrase ‘plant and machinery’ occurred ten times. The existence of both phrases in the CGST Act, 2017 proved crucial in the final view taken by the Supreme Court that both phrases have a different meaning. Finally, the State also cited ‘revenue loss’ as a reason for disallowing ITC. It was argued that the petitioner could claim ITC while renting/leasing the mall, but the mall would be sold after 5 or 6 years and on such sale no GST would be paid since GST is not payable on sale of immovable property sold after receiving a completion certificate. This would cause a loss to the exchequer. This again is a curious argument: if sale of immovable property does not attract GST as per the legal provisions, how can non-payment of GST in such cases cause a ‘loss’ to exchequer? Further, if blocking of ITC is done to prevent such a ‘loss’ then it defeats a central purpose of GST as a value-added tax.   

Despite the voluminous arguments, if one were to identify the core issue in the judgment, it would be whether ‘or’ can mean ‘and’ and further whether a shopping mall could be termed as a ‘plant’. Supreme Court said answered the former in negative and the latter is to be decided by the High Court based on facts of the case and by applying the ‘functionality test’ endorsed by the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court’s conclusion is based on two pillars: first, reiteration and clear articulation of the elements of strict interpretation of statutes; second, reliance on a variety of judicial precedents to endorse the functionality test. 

First Pillar of the Judgment: Strict Interpretation of Tax Statutes  

To begin with, strict interpretation of tax statutes is a principle that is followed universally and adhered to in most jurisdictions including India. The principle can be summarized can be expressed in a thesis length and has various nuances. In the context of impugned judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted summarized the core principles as: a taxation statute must be interpreted with no additions or subtractions; a taxation statute cannot be interpreted on any assumption or presumption; in the fiscal arena it is not the function of the Court to compel the Parliament to go further and do more and there is nothing unjust if a taxpayer escapes the letter of law due to failure of the legislature to express itself clearly. (para 25) 

Second, while Courts in various judgments have stated that taxation statutes should be interpreted strictly, they have failed to apply the said principle in its true sense. But in the impugned judgment we see a correct application of the strict interpretation principle as evidenced in the following observations of the Supreme Court: 

The explanation to Section 17 defines “plant and machinery”. The explanation seeks to define the expression “plant and machinery” used in Chapter V and Chapter VI. In Chapter VI, the expression “plant and machinery” appears in several places, but the expression “plant or machinery” is found only in Section 17(5)(d). If the legislature intended to give the expression “plant or machinery” the same meaning as “plant and machinery” as defined in the explanation, the legislature would not have specifically used the expression “plant or machinery” in Section 17(5)(d). The legislature has made this distinction consciously. Therefore, the expression “plant and machinery” and “plant or machinery” cannot be given the same meaning. (para 44) 

The Supreme Court in making the above observations clarified that interpreting ‘plant or machinery’ to mean same as ‘plant and machinery’ would amount to doing violence to words in the statute and in interpreting tax statutes, the Courts cannot supply deficiencies in the statute. Dominant part of the reasoning for above conclusion was derived from adherence to strict interpretation, but also that the phrase ‘plant and machinery’ occurred ten times in Chapter V and VI of the CGST Act, 2017 while the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ occurred only once indicating that the legislature intended to use different phrases at different places. Also, the Supreme Court noted that even if use of ‘or’ was a mistake the legislature had ample time since the High Court’s judgment to intervene and correct the error, but it had not done so. Hence, the assumption should be that use of the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ was not a mistake. The bulk of the reasoning though did come from principles of strict interpretation. Both, Supreme Court’s summary of principles of strict interpretation of tax statutes and its application to Section 17(5)(d) read with Explanation to Section 17(6) are a perfect example of crisp articulation of a principle and its application.     

Second Pillar of the Judgment: Functionality Test 

Once the Supreme Court concluded that the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ is distinct from ‘plant and machinery’, it had to interpret meaning and scope of the former phrase since only the latter was defined under Explanation to Section 17(6). The Supreme Court clarified that the expression ‘immovable property other than plant or machinery’ used in Section 17 shows that a plant could be an immovable property. And in the absence of a definition of ‘plant’ in CGST Act, 2017 meaning of the word in commercial sense will have to be relied on. The Court cited a series of precedents where the word ‘plant’ had been interpreted and the ‘functionality test’ had been laid down. Clarifying the import of various precedents, the Supreme Court borrowed the language from previous judicial decisions and expressed the functionality test in following terms: 

 … if it is found on facts that a building has been so planned and constructed as to serve an assessee’s special technical requirements, it will qualify to be treated as a plant for the purposes of investment allowance. The word ‘plant’ used in a bracketed portion of Section 17(5)(d) cannot be given the restricted meaning provided in the definition of “plant and machinery”, which excludes land, buildings or any other civil structures … To give a plain interpretation to clause (d) of Section 17(5), the word “plant” will have to be interpreted by taking recourse to the functionality test. (para 52)

 While the functionality test expressed above provides broad guidelines, there is enough in the test to cause tremendous confusion and uncertainty once it is applied to varied fact situations. For example, the Supreme Court itself clarified that the Orissa High Court did not decide if the shopping mall of the petitioner was a ‘plant’ and the High Court needs to answer the question determine if ITC will be blocked. But even if the petitioner’s shopping mall is held to constitute a plant, it would not mean that all shopping malls will receive similar treatment. Because the Supreme Court clearly says: 

‘Each mall is different. Therefore, in each case, fact-finding enquiry is contemplated.’ (para 56)

The answer on applying the functionality test would depend on facts of each case and similar buildings can be labelled as a plant or not depending on factual variations. While the Supreme Court has clarified that the functionality test is the appropriate framework to determine the eligibility for ITC in the impugned case and other similar cases, the application of it has been left to the High Court for now. Only once several such cases are decided, will be know if coherence is emerging in the interpretation and application of the functionality test. But since the functionality test is highly fact sensitive, we should expect varied answers depending on the underlying fact situation.  

Finally, the Supreme Court helpfully did clarify the import and ratio of the precedents on this issue mostly notably Anand Theatres judgment. In Anand Theatres case, the issue was whether a building which is used for running a hotel or a cinema theatre can be considered as a tool for business and thus a plant for purpose of allowing depreciation under the IT Act, 1961. The Court answered in the negative, but a later decision in Karnataka Power Corporations judgment limited the decision in Anand Theatres case to only cinemas and hotels. The Supreme Court in the impugned judgment also made it amply clear that Anand Theatres case was only applicable for hotels and cinema theatres and could not be used to determine if shopping malls, warehouses, or any other building amounts to a plant.  In clarifying so, the legal position that emerges is that hotels and cinema theatres are not plants while other buildings are a plant or not needs to be determined by applying the functionality test. This was a welcome clarification since there was confusion as to which decision is relevant and applicable in the context of deciding if a building is a plant or not while applying the functionality test.         

Meaning of ‘On Own Account’ Lacks Proper Reasoning 

A notable flaw of the judgment, which in my opinion, should be scrutinized in future decisions is the Supreme Court’s explanation of the meaning of ‘own account’. It interpreted the phrase in following terms: 

Construction is said to be on a taxable person’s “own account” when (i) it is made for his personal use and not for service or (ii) it is to be used by the person constructing as a setting in which business is carried out. However, construction cannot said to be on a taxable person’s “own account” if it is intended to be sold or given on lease or license. (para 32)

The flaw in the above opinion is that it comes from ‘nowhere’. The latter element of ‘own account’ was the petitioner’s understanding of the phrase. But, in the Supreme Court in reaching this conclusion does not cite any authority or how or why does it agree with this interpretation of the phrase. The paragraphs that precede and succeed the above conclusion are focused on Supreme Court’s analysis that clause (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) are distinct and occupy different territories and its view about meaning of ‘own account’ seems to hang in air with no discernible reason to support it. One could argue that the Supreme Court’s interpretation is a commercial understanding of the phrase, but I doubt if adopting commercial meaning of the phrase can be done without stating reasons for subscribing to it. 

Also, the petitioner’s had argued that ‘on own account’ should be restricted to scenarios when a building is used as a setting for carrying out the business, not when it a tool for the business. Supreme Court seems to have endorsed the distinction based on the above cited paragraph. Again, this distinction works well in abstract but applying it to the facts of each case and distinguishing between what is ‘setting for a business’ and what is merely a ‘tool for business’ may not be obvious in each case. 

Implications and Way Forward 

The implications of the impugned judgment are various. To begin with, the phrase ‘plant or machinery’ does not mean the same as ‘plant and machinery’. A clear and unambiguous application of the doctrine of strict interpretation of tax statutes signals and reiterates the need to adopt this doctrine while interpreting provisions of tax law. At the same time, while the Supreme Court has not inaugurated a new test, it has unambiguously thrown its weight behind a well-established test, i.e., functionality test to determine if a plant or fixture in question is a plant. And judicial decisions that have applied the functionality test in the pre-GST and IT Act, 1961 indicate that uniform answers are unlikely as the query is fact specific and so are the answers. Thus, in the foreseeable future as courts adjudicate on this issue, we should expect varied answers and not a classical coherent and uniform jurisprudence on this issue.  

Fee for Technical Services: Future Demands Answers

by

Introduction 

Tax practitioners tend to refer to Fee for technical services (‘FTS’) and Royalty income in tandem with an intent to highlight the shape shifting nature of both concepts under domestic and international tax law. And in Indian context, the discussion is also about the high volume of litigation that both concepts invite. This article is an attempt to briefly highlight how the term FTS has been interpreted by Indian courts and whether in view of the technological advancements, specifically the ability to offer technical expertise without human intervention – such as with the help of AI bots – presents an opportunity and a challenge to re-orient the jurisprudence. And in which direction and based on which parameters should the reorientation happen? 

Fee for technical services is defined under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii), IT Act, 1961 as follows: 

Any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the head “Salaries”.  

The key phrase – also relevant for this article – that has invited judicial interpretation is: ‘rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services’. Courts have, at various times, emphasised the meaning of the above phrase by reading into it certain elements that are not found in the bare text of the provision. The two elements – relevant to this article – are: first, the requirement of providing a service as opposed to merely offering a facility; second, the presence of a human element as courts have taken the view that managerial, technical or consultancy services can be provided only by intervention of humans. The latter element is likely to come under scrutiny in the future as increasingly managerial, technical and, consultancy services are being and will be provided without direct involvement of human beings. The insistence of human element thus cannot and in my view, should not be insisted in each case to determine if a certain payment amounts to FTS. At the same time, will it be prudent to remove the human element altogether? What should be the legislative and judicial response to technological advancements such as AI bots be in this specific case? 

FTS under Section 9, IT Act, 1961: Rendering of Service and Requirement of Human Element 

In interpreting the requirements of Section 9, courts have taken the view that Explanation 2 contemplates rendering of service to the payer of fee and merely collecting a fee for use of a standard facility from those willing to pay for the fee would not amount to receiving a fee for technical services. This view has been reiterated in various decisions. For example, in one case, the Supreme Court was required to decide that if a company in the shipping business provides its agents access to an integrated communication system in order to enable them track the cargo efficiently, communicate better, and otherwise perform their work in an improved manner and thereafter charges the agents on a pro rata basis for providing the communication system, would the payments by agents amount to FTS? The Supreme Court relying on precedents concluded that: 

Once that is accepted and it is also found that the Maersk Net System is an integral part of the shipping business and the business cannot be conducted without the same, which was allowed to be used by the agents of the assessee as well in order to enable them to discharge their role more effectively as agents, it is only a facility that was allowed to be shared by the agents. By no stretch of imagination it can be treated as any technical services provided to the agents.

The service needs to be provided specifically to the customer/service recipient and merely providing access to a standardized facility and charging fee for using that facility would not amount to FTS. The service needs to specialized, exclusive, and meet individual requirements of the customer or user who may approach the service provider and only those kind of services can fall within the ambit of Explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(vii). This requirement may require tailoring in context of AI as a typical AI-assisted solution currently involves a programmed bot that can address a variety of situations. And such a situation raises lots of unanswered questions. Merely because one bot is providing different and differing solutions based on requirements of clients, would it be appropriate to say it is not rendering services? And subscription to the AI bot is merely a fee being paid by various customers? And that only if AI bot is specifically designed and customized to the clients current and anticipated needs would be the payment for such bot be termed as FTS? What if there are only minor variations in the standard bot that is providing services to various clients? The incremental changes would be enough to term the payment for such ‘customised’ AI bot as FTS? 

The second requirement that the Courts have insisted on for a payment to constitute as FTS is presence of human element. This element has been best explained by the Supreme Court in one of its judgments where it noted that the term manager and consultant and the respective management and consultancy services provided by them have a definite human element involved. The Supreme Court noted: 

… it is apparent that both the words ―”managerial” and ― “consultancy” involve a human element. And, both, managerial service and consultancy service, are provided by humans. Consequently, applying the rule of noscitur a sociis, the word ― “technical” as appearing in Explanation 2 to Section 9 (1) (vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element. (para 15) 

In the impugned case, the Supreme Court concluded that since the services being provided by sophisticated machines without human interface, it could not be said that the companies which were providing such services through machines were rendering FTS. Recently, the ITAT has also observed that the burden is on the Revenue to prove that in the course of rendition of services, the assessee transferred technical knowledge, know how, skill, etc. to the service recipient which enables the recipient to utilize it independently without the aid and assistance of the service provider. This was in the context of an online service provider, Coursera, which the Revenue argued was providing technical services to an educational institute in India. Coursera though successfully argued that it merely an aggregator and all contents of courses had been created by its customers. And it merely provided a customized landing page to the institutions and thus its role cannot be understood as that of provider of a technical service.   

Thus, the jurisprudence is relatively clear on the requirements of rendering a service, customized to the needs of the client and presence of a human element since the former cannot be provided without the latter. But, with the advent of AI and AI-assisted services, this may and should require us to rethink.    

Interpretation of IT Act, 1961 Needs to be Dynamic 

In a abovementioned case, the Madras High Court in interpreting scope of FTS under Section 9, IT Act, 1961 observed that when the provision was enacted human life was not surrounded by technological devices of various kinds and further noted that: 

Any construction of the provisions of the Act must be in the background of the realities of day-to-day life in which the products of technology play an important role in making life smoother and more convenient. Section 194J, as also Explanation 2 in Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act were not intended to cover the charges paid by the average house-holder or consumer for utilising the products of modern technology, such as, use of the telephone fixed or mobile, the cable T. V., the internet, the automobile, the railway, the aeroplane, consumption of electrical energy, etc. (para 17)

If one adopts the above view as one of the guiding principles for interpretation of IT Act, 1961, especially when it comes to the interface with technology, then there is a case to be made that the jurisprudence on FTS under Section 9 – as developed by courts over several years and through various decisions – needs to be keep abreast of the technological advances such as AI. Presence of human element is fundamental to classify a fee or an income as FTS and there is a defensible premise in courts insisting on it. However, as the Madras High noted in its above cited observation, IT Act, 1961 and the Explanation 2 were not drafted by contemplating all kinds of technological developments such AI-assisted services. One could argue, – and again it is a valid point – tax statutes need to be interpreted strictly and that the Courts should not read into the provision that human element is not required for ‘AI dependent services’ or ‘AI assisted services’ unless the statute is amended. But that is only a partial view of the challenge posed by AI. One could also argue that the human element was actually read into the definition of FTS by courts and it is not in the bare provision. Thereby making a case for some de minimis judicial intervention even in interpretation of tax statutes. And courts would be justified in developing a sui generis jurisprudence on FTS-AI interface even without the statutory amendment to that effect.  

I’m not sure of the exact and most appropriate response to the ‘AI-challenge’ and the tax lawyer in me does lean towards a statutory amendment to dispense with the human presence requirement. And this is not solely on the grounds that judiciary needs to adhere to strict interpretation of tax laws but also because a statutory amendment may be able to tailor the definition of FTS vis-à-vis AI in a more suitable fashion as opposed to judiciary-led interpretation which can be ad hoc and not sometimes only suited for limited fact situations. While any response – legislative or judicial – does not seem to be in the near horizon in India, I do believe and it is evident that AI is going to pose significant challenges to collection of taxes, the FTS example which is the focus of this article is only one such challenge. We need to be mindful of such emerging challenges and reflect on them suitably for considered responses catalyze a more appropriate tax policy solution.  

Short Note from Tax History: Cost of Acquisition and Capital Gains Tax

by

This article aims to examine in detail a judgment on capital gains tax that continues to have enduring relevance. B.C. Srinivasa Shetty case was decided in 1981 by a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court and its observations on chargeability of capital gains tax continue to be cited in various contemporary cases. In the impugned case, Supreme Court clarified the chargeability of capital gains tax on transfer of goodwill of a business. This article tries to underline the observations of Supreme Court and argues that an overlooked contribution of the decision is its adherence to strict interpretation of charging provision of a tax statute.   

Facts 

The assessee was a registered firm and Clause 13 of the Instrument of Partnership – executed on July 1954 – stated that the goodwill of the firm had not been valued and would be valued on its dissolution. In December 1965 when the firm was dissolved, its goodwill was valued at Rs 1,50,000. A new firm by the same name was constituted, registered and it took over all the assets, liabilities, and goodwill of the previous firm. There were differing views as to whether transfer of goodwill from the dissolved firm to the new firm attracted capital gains tax. The ITAT and the Karnataka High Court both held that the consideration received by the assessee on transfer of goodwill was not liable to tax under Section 45 of the IT Act, 1961. At that time, Section 45 of the IT Act, 1961 read as follows: 

(1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 53 and 54, be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Capital gains”, and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.”   

Further, Section 2(14) of the IT Act, 1961 defined ‘capital asset’ to include property of any kind held by an assessee. And the term property included various kinds of property unless specifically excluded under Section 2(14)(i) to Section 2(14)(iv) and goodwill was not in the list of excluded properties. At the same time, Section 2, was subject to an overall restrictive clause ‘unless the context otherwise requires’. The Supreme Court had to examine all the above provisions in conjunction to determine if goodwill was contemplated as a capital asset under Section 45. Since goodwill was not specifically excluded from the definition of property under Section 2(14), the Supreme Court’s analysis centred on whether the context of Section 45 suggested that goodwill can/cannot be considered as a capital asset.   

 Ratio 

The Supreme Court cited relevant precedents to elaborate on the nature of goodwill and acknowledged that it was easier to describe it than define it. For example, the value of goodwill of a successful business would increase with time while that of a business on wane would decrease. At the same time, it was impossible to state the exact time of birth of goodwill. The Court then noted that Section 45 was a charging provision for capital gains and the Parliament has also enacted detailed computation provisions for capital gains tax. And the charge of capital gains tax cannot be said to apply to a transaction if the computation provisions cannot be applied to the transaction. Defending its views on the close inter-linkage between charging and computation provisions, the Supreme Court observed that: 

This inference flows from the general arrangement of the provisions in the Income-tax Act, where under each head of income the charging provision is accompanied by a set of provisions for computing the income subject to that charge. The character of the computation provisions in each case bears a relationship to the nature of the charge. Thus the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. (emphasis added)     

The above reasoning is reasonable and helpful to understand the scope of a charging provision especially if the words used in a charging provision are not clearly defined or if their import is not clear. So, did the computation provisions provide for calculating cost of goodwill of a new business? And whether transfer of the said goodwill was liable to capital gains tax? The Supreme Court answered in the negative. 

The Supreme Court made three observations to support its conclusion: 

First, the Supreme Court clarified that as per the computation provisions of IT Act, 1961, calculating the cost of any capital asset was necessary to determine the capital gains. Legislative intent therefore was to apply capital gains tax provision to assets which could be acquired after spending some money. None of the computation provisions – as they existed then – could be applied to assets whose cost cannot be identified or envisaged. And, the Supreme Court noted, goodwill of a new business was the kind of asset whose cost of acquisition was not possible to identify. 

Second, the Supreme Court noted that it was impossible to determine the date on which an asset such as goodwill came into existence for a new business. And determining the date of acquisition of a capital asset was crucial to apply the computation provisions relating to capital gains. 

Third, the Supreme Court invoked the doctrine of impossibility, without naming it as such. The Court acknowledged that there was a qualitative difference between a charging provision and a computation provision, and usually the former cannot be controlled by the latter. But, in the impugned case, the Supreme Court noted that the question was whether it was ‘possible to apply the computation provision at all’ if a certain interpretation was pressed on the charging provision. Since the cost and date of acquisition of a goodwill as an asset were impossible to determine – and both were a necessity to apply computation provisions of capital gains – the Supreme Court concluded that goodwill was not a capital asset as contemplated under Section 45, IT Act, 1961.  

Simply put, while goodwill as an asset was not excluded from the definition of property, its transfer could not give rise to capital gains tax since it was impossible to compute the cost and date of acquisition of goodwill as per the computation provisions of the IT Act, 1961. Despite the Supreme Court stating otherwise, it was clearly a case of computation provision determining the scope and applicability of a charging provision, on grounds of impossibility. 

Enduring Relevance 

The first aspect of the relevance arises from the statutory amendment the case triggered and provided that the cost of acquisition of a goodwill in case of purchase from a previous owner would be the purchase price and in other cases the cost of acquisition would be treated as nil. Section 55, IT Act, 1961 currently contains the above deeming fiction and ensures that by treating cost of acquisition of goodwill of a new business as nil, the entire consideration received on its transfer would be exigible to capital gains tax. While the provision has undergone several amendments since pronouncement of the Supreme Court’s decision in B.C. Srinivas Shetty case, the core policy of treating cost of acquisition of goodwill of a new business as nil has remained constant.     

Second, the ratio of B.C. Srinivas Shetty case has differing views. Either the ratio is interpreted to mean that an asset whose cost of acquisition cannot be computed is not liable to capital gains tax or it is interpreted to mean that an asset whose cost was not paid by an assessee on acquisition is not liable to tax. The latter is certainly not the import of the B.C. Srinivas Shetty case as the Supreme Court itself in the impugned case clarified that capital gains tax was applicable to assets that could be purchased on expenditure, and it was immaterial if on the facts of the case the asset in question was ‘acquired without the payment of money’. The above has been endorsed in a later case too.     

Third, and this is curiously an under-appreciated aspect of the case – strict interpretation of the IT Act, 1961. As most of us familiar with tax law would know, strict interpretation of tax statutes is a thumb rule that is adhered to by most courts. And this is especially in interpreting charging provisions. The impugned case is a prime example of the Court not supplementing the bare text of the statute with any word or otherwise trying to plug a gap only to ensure that a particular gain is taxable. For example, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in the impugned case, various High Courts did hold that the cost of acquisition for an asset like goodwill should be treated as nil. For example, in one case, the Gujarat High Court reasoned that the inquiry must not be whether goodwill is intended to subject of charge of capital gains tax, but whether it is intended to be excluded from charge despite falling within the plain terms of Section 45, IT Act, 1961. And concluded that transfer of goodwill even in absence of cost of acquisition was liable to capital gains tax. However, the Gujarat High Court’s view was not a strict interpretation of relevant the statutory provisions and neither did goodwill fall within the purview of Section 45 in ‘plain terms’. The Supreme Court in interpreting the provision the way it did, avoided the temptation to levy a capital gain tax on transfer of goodwill by ‘plugging’ a gap in the legislation and did a better job of respecting the legislative intent.    

   

Powers of Arrest under GST: Unravelling the Phrase ‘Committed an Offence’

by

CGST Act, 2017 provides the Commissioner power to arrest under specific circumstances. Section 69, CGST Act, 2017 states that: 

Where the Commissioner has reasons to believe that a person committed any offence specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 132 which is punishable under clause (i) or (ii) of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) of the said section, he may, by order, authorise any officer or central tax to arrest such person. (emphasis added)   

There are several aspects of the power to arrest under GST that were and are under scrutiny of courts. For example, scope and meaning of the phrase ‘reason to believe’ remains open-ended even though the same phrase has a long standing presence under the IT Act, 1961. In this post, I will focus on judicial understanding of the phrase ‘committed an offence’ and its implication. Similar phrase and powers of arrest were provided in pre-GST laws as well, e.g., under Finance Act, 1994 which implemented service tax in India. Section 91, Finance Act, 1994 provided that: 

If the Commissioner of Central Excise has reason to believe that any person has committed any offencespecified in clause (i) or clause (ii) of section 89, he may, by general or special order, authorise any officer of Central Excise, not below the rank of Superintendent of Central Excise, to arrest such person. (emphasis added)     

The tenor and intent of both the above cited provisions is similar. The power to arrest has been entrusted to a relatively senior officer, who must have a ‘reason to believe’ that the person in question has ‘committed an offence’. Courts have made divergent observations on the meaning of the phrase ‘committed an offence’. Typically, a person is said to have committed an offence under a tax statute once the adjudication proceedings are completed and the quantum of tax evaded/not deposited is determined by the relevant tax authority after receiving a statement from the accused. In some cases, the tax officers have been found wanting in patience and have initiated arrests without completing the adjudication proceedings of establishing commission of an offence. Courts have made certain observations on the validity and permissibility of such a course of action.  

Pre-GST Interpretation 

There are two broad ways to interpret the above arrest-related provisions vis-à-vis commission of offence. First, the officer in question is in possession of credible material which provides it a ‘reason to believe’ that a taxpayer or other person has committed the offence(s) in question. In such a situation, the officer can authorise arrest of such person without completing the adjudication proceedings. Second, the officer’s reason to believe cannot – by itself – trigger powers of arrest, but the adjudication proceedings need to be completed to ascertain the amount of tax payable. The adjudication proceedings typically require issuance of a showcause notice to the taxpayer, and on receiving representation from the taxpayer the proceedings are completed by issuance of an order/assessment determining the tax payable by such person. Arrests can only happen once the adjudication proceedings have been completed and quantum of tax payable has been determined. The Delhi High Court – interpreting the relevant provisions of Finance Act, 1994 – in MakemyTrip case affirmed that the latter constituted the position of law and stated that authorities cannot without issuance of a showcause notice or enquiry or investigation arrest a person merely on the suspicion of evasion of service tax or failure to deposit the service tax collected. The High Court added: 

Therefore, while the prosecution for the purposes of determining the commission of an offence under Section 89 (1) (d)of the FA and adjudication proceedings for penalty under Section 83 A of the FA can go on simultaneously, both will have to be preceded by the adjudication for the purposes of determining the evasion of service tax. The Petitioners are, therefore, right that without any such determination, to straightaway conclude that the Petitioners had collected and not deposited service tax in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs and thereby had committed a cognizable offence would be putting the cart before the horse. This is all the more so because one consequence of such determination is the triggering of the power to arrest under Section 90 (1) of the FA. (para 78)

The only exceptions to the above rule as per the High Court was that if the taxpayer is a habitual offender, doesn’t file the tax returns on time and has a repeated history of defaults. The Supreme Court, in a short order, upheld and endorsed the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of the law. Various other courts, such as the Bombay High Court in ICICI Bank Ltd case, also took the view that adjudication proceedings should precede any coercive actions by tax officers.       

Courts in the above cases seem to be guided by at least two things: first, that the powers of arrest and recovery of tax are coercive actions and shouldn’t be resorted to in a whimsical fashion; second, establishing the ‘commission of an offence’ can only happen through adjudication proceedings and not based on opinion of the relevant officer, even if the opinion satisfies the threshold of ‘reason to believe’. Insisting on completion of adjudication proceedings also ensures that the ingredient of ‘commission of an offence’ prescribed in the provision is satisfied. Again, this is for the simple reason that an officer’s reason to believe that an offence has been committed is not the same as establishing that an offence has been committed in adjudication proceedings. The latter also provides the accused an opportunity to respond and make their representation instead of directly facing coercive action. 

Rapidly Swinging Pendulum under GST

Similar question has repeatedly arisen under GST, with no satisfactory answer one way or the other. While some High Courts have relied on the MakemyTrip case, others have suggested otherwise. The contradictory opinions can be highlighted by two cases. In Raj Punj case, the Rajasthan High Court deciding a case involving false invoices and fake ITC held that the petitioner’s contention that tax should be first determined under Sections 73 and 74 of CGST Act, 2017 does not have any force and the Department can proceed straightaway by issuing summons or if reasonable grounds are available by arresting the offender. (para 21) The High Court curiously added that determination of tax is not required if an offence is committed under Section 132, CGST Act, 2017. The observation is curious because Section 132(l), CGST Act, 2017 clearly links the penalty and imprisonment to the amount of tax evaded or amount of ITC wrongfully availed.  

The Madras High Court in M/s Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd case though had a different opinion. The High Court held that use of the word ‘commits’ in Section 132, CGST Act, 2017 made it clear that an act of committal of an offence had to be fixed before punishment was imposed. And that recovery of excess ITC claimed can only be initiated once it has been quantified by way of procedure set out in Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The High Court endorsed the approach and interpretation adopted in the MakemyTrip case and added that its view was similar in that an exception to the procedure of assessement is available in case of habitual offenders. 

What is the reason for invoking arrest powers before completing adjudication proceedings? Various. First, the Supreme Court’s observations in Radheshyam Kejriwal case that criminal prosecution and adjudication proceedings can be launched simultaneously, and both are independent of each other. While the Supreme Court was right in noting that both proceedings are independent of each other, it did not specifically opine on the inter-relation of adjudication proceedings and arrest. Second, if there is reason to believe that a large amount of tax has been evaded, arrests are justified by tax officers by arguing that they are necessary for protection of revenue’s interest. Third, evidentiary or other reasons can be invoked as failure to arrest the suspects may lead to destruction of evidence of tax evasion. And various other reasons that can be clubbed under the broader umbrella of expediency and revenue’s interest. The exceptions will always be recognized – as in the MakemyTrip case – the question is the boundary and scope of such exceptions tends to be malleable and there is little that can be done to address the issue.     

Way Forward 

The Supreme Court is currently seized of the matter involving scope of the powers of arrest under GST. While I’m unaware of the precise grounds of appeal before the Supreme Court, the issues broadly involve the scope of powers of arrest, pre-conditions for invoking the powers of arrest, the exceptions, and possibility of the misuse of powers of arrest. The latter have been indirectly acknowledged and ‘Guidelines’ have been issued, exhorting officers not invoke powers of arrest in a routine and mechanical manner. And only make arrest where ‘palpable’ guilty mind is involved. There is empirical data – yet – that can establish the efficacy or otherwise of the guidelines. And Supreme Court may enunciate its own set of guidelines in its judgment. But, as the cliché goes, the proof pudding is in its eating. Powers of arrest are necessary to create the necessary deterrent effect: minimize and detect tax evasion. At the same time, frequent resort to coercive powers under a tax statute adversely affects business freedoms. The balancing act is tough to achieve. I’ve written elsewhereabout the uncertainty that bedevils this area of law, and I suspect little is going to change in the instantly. Supreme Court’s judgment may provide a guiding light, but one should temper one’s expectations and not hope for a magic wand that may, at once, resolve a tricky issue.    

LinkedIn