Work contract tax
Goods involved in works contract’ have been included in definition of ‘sale’ w.e.f. 11-5-2002. Note that the CST is on ‘goods involved in works contract’ and not on ‘works contract’ as such. This distinction is vital in deciding aspects of valuation and also whether a particular transaction is inter state sale.What is works contract - Some contracts are for contracts for labour, work or service and not for sale of goods, though goods are used in executing the contract for labour, work or service e.g. when a contractor constructs a building, the buyer pays for cost of building which includes cost of building material, labour and other services offered by the Contractor. Property in building is passed on to buyer and there is no contract for supply of building material as such. An air conditioner manufacturer may undertake a ‘works contract’ for designing, fitting and commissioning of air conditioning equipment. This is contract for sale of labour and material and not contract of sale. Property in air conditioning equipment passes as an incidental to the works contract. Here, there is no sale of ‘goods’. It is a ‘works contract’ and not liable to CST. – State of Madras v. Voltas Ltd. (1963) 14 STC 446 and 861 (Mad HC) – also indirectly approved in Batliboi v. STO (2000) 119 STC 583 (Guj HC DB).Laying of pipe line is yet another example of works contract, where passing of property in the pipe is incidental to works contract.It is difficult to establish whether a particular contract is ‘contract for work’ or ‘contract of sale’ and rigid and inflexible fast tests cannot be laid down. It depends on main object of the parties, circumstances and custom of trade. Generally, a contract of sale is a contract whose main object is the transfer of the property in, and delivery and possession of, a chattel as a chattel to the buyer. Where the main object of work undertaken by the payee of the price is not the transfer of a chattel qua chattel, the contract is one for labour and work. The aspects like ownership of material, value of skill and labour compared to value of material can be considered, but these are not conclusive. - Halsbury’s Laws of England - quoted with approval in State of Gujarat v. Variety Body Builders - AIR 1976 SC 2108 = (1976) 38 STC 176 (SC). – same view in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Associated Hotels - (1972) 29 STC 474 (SC) = AIR 1972 SC 1131 = 1972(2) SCR 937 = (1972) 1 SCC 472In Vanguard Rolling Shutters v. CST - (1977) 39 STC 372 (SC) = AIR 1977 SC 1505, it was observed that it is difficult to lay down any rule of universal application to decide whether a contract is a works contract or contract for sale of goods. If the contract is primarily for supply of materials at prices agreed and the work or service is incidental to the execution of contract, it will be contract for sale. On the other hand, where contract is primarily a contract of work and labour and materials are supplied in execution of such contract, it is a works contract.In Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1984) 55 STC 327 (SC) = (1984) 1 SCC 706 = 1983(2) SCALE 1090 = AIR 1984 SC 744 (SC 3 members), HAL imported materials and components on behalf of Government of India and manufactured aircrafts on behalf of Government of India. The goods belonged to Government of India but were entrusted to HAL for manufacture of aircraft to be delivered to Air Force. It was held that it is a works contract. It was observed that in contract for work, person producing has no 'property' in the thing produced as a whole, even if part or even whole of material used by him may have been his property. In contract of sale, the thing produced as a whole has individual existence as sole property of the party who produces it some time before delivery and the property therein passes only under the contract relating thereto to the other party for a price. In State of Gujarat v. Kailash Engineering Co. (1967) 19 STC 13 (SC) = AIR 1976 SC 2108, it was held that if unfinished goods are held as property of buyer, it is a works contract. In UOI v. Central India Machinery Mfg Co. Ltd. (CIMMCO) AIR 1977 SC 1537 = (1977) 40 STC 246 (SC), it was held that if property in final article passes only after it is completed, the contract will be of sale, even if raw material is purchased on behalf of buyer.In State of Tamilnadu v. Anandam Viswanathan – (1989) 1 SCC 613 = (1989) 73 STC 1 (SC), it was observed that nature of contract can be found out only when intentions of parties are found out. The fact that in the execution of works contract some materials are used, and the property in the goods so used, passes to other party, the contractor undertaking the work will not necessarily be deemed, on that account, to sell the materials. - - Primary difference between a contract of work or service and a contract for sale is that in the former, there is in the person performing or rendering service, no property in the thing produced as a whole, notwithstanding that a part or even the whole of the material used by him may have been his property. Where the finished product supplied to a particular customer is not a commercial commodity in the sense that it cannot be sold in the market to any other person, the transaction is only a works contract.In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2000 AIR SCW 2582 =(2000) 6 SCC 579 = 119 STC 533 = 2000(5) SCALE 216, after reviewing entire case law, following principles were evolved - (1) It is difficult to lay down any inflexible rule (2) Transfer of property of goods for a price is the linchpin of definition of sale. Main object of parties has to be found out. Substance of the contract and not form is to be looked into. (3) If the thing to be delivered has individual existence before the delivery as sole property of the party who is to deliver it, it is a sale. (4) If bulk of material used belongs to the manufacturer who sells the end product, it is strong pointer that the contract is for sale of goods and not of work and labour. However, the test is not decisive. Relative importance of material qua work is important. Supreme Court in a very old case - State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. - AIR 1958 SC 560 = 1959 SCR 379 = (1958) 9 STC 353 (SC), had held that no tax can be levied on works contract, as tax can be levied only on ‘sale of goods’ as defined in Sale of Goods Act. In an indivisible works contract, there is no sale of goods as there could be no agreement to sell materials as such and moreover, the property does not pass as movables. The material used therein becomes property of the other party on the theory of accretion and, as such, no sales tax can be levied on such material.‘Works Contract’ was one of the ways of avoiding sales tax. Hence, Constitution was amended on 2nd February, 1983 (46th amendment). Clause 29A was added to Article 366 to cover ‘transfer of property in goods involved in execution of works contract’. Subsequently, most of States have amended their sales tax laws to cover ‘works contract’, but Central Sales Tax Act was not amended till May 2002. Thus, till 11-5-2002, CST was not leviable on indivisible works contracts.In Builders' Association of India v. UOI - (1989) 2 SCR 320 = (1989) 1 CLA 332 (SC) = (1989) 73 STC 370 (SC) = (1989) 1 SCALE 770 = (1989) 2 SCC 645 = AIR 1989 SC 1371 (SC 5 member constitution bench), it has been observed : ‘After the 46th amendment, the works contract which was indivisible one, is by a legal fiction altered into one for sale of goods and the other for supply of labour and services. After 46th amendment, it has become possible for States to levy tax on value of goods involved in a works contract in the same way in which the sales tax was leviable on the price of goods and materials supplied in a building contract which had been entered into two distinct and separate parts.’In Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. CC 2001(1) SCALE 436 = (2001) 4 SCC 593 = 124 STC 59 = AIR 2001 SC 862 = 2001 AIR SCW 559 (SC 3 member bench), it was held that even if the dominant intention of the contract is rendering of service which will amount to a works contract, after forty-sixth amendment to Constitution, the State would now be empowered to levy sales tax on material used in such contract.Contract of skill & labour - Some contracts are essentially contracts of skill & labour e.g. tailoring work, printing or cyclostyling etc. These jobs are not covered under 'works contract'. - - A contract to paint a portrait is a contract for skill and labour and not a contract for sale of goods, as substance of contract is for artist’s skill and it is only ancillary to that there would pass to the customer some materials like paint and canvas. – Robinson v. Graves (1935) 1 KB 579. However, in Lee v. Griffn (1861) 30 LJ QB 252, when a dentist agreed to make set of false teeth for a lady and to fit them into mouth, it was held a contract for sale of goods [There can be two views on the issue].Mere supply of labour not covered – Taxable event is transfer of property in goods. In case of contract for supply of labour, there is no transfer of property in goods and hence there is no tax liability. – Ashok Kumar Garg v. UOI (2002) 128 STC 442 (P&H HC DB) * Rajiv Gumber v. S. (2002) 128 STC 494 (P&H HC DB). Contractor need not be owner if he sales flat before construction – The contractor need not be owner of property. He will be liable even if he never had absolute ownership of the flat. – Mittal Investment Corporation v. ACCT (2001) 121 STC 3 (Karn HC DB). The judgment was modified in Mittal Investment Corporation v. ACCT (2001) 121 STC 14 (Karn HC DB) to the extent that it was held that the contractor is not liable if he enters into agreement with buyer after construction of flat, but will be liable if he enters into contract before construction of flat. [Decision as per Karnataka Sales Tax Act, but principle may apply in other cases also.]Value liable for Works Contract Tax – Some important case law is discussed here.Builders Association of India v. UOI - This is a landmark judgment of Supreme Court on ‘works contract’. (1989) 2 SCR 320 = (1989) 1 CLA 332 (SC) = (1989) 73 STC 370 (SC) = 1989(1) SCALE 770 = (1989) 2 SCC 645 = AIR 1989 SC 1371 ( 5 member Constitution bench). The background of this case is that after amendment to Constitution in 1983, various State Governments imposed levy on works contract. The tax was levied by some State Governments on full value of contract which included the material cost and other costs like labour, supply of services etc. However, in the judgment, Hon. Supreme Court held that the power of States to levy tax on works contract is subject to limitation of Article 286 i.e. tax cannot be levied by State on (a) Outside the State (b) during import/export. (c) Restrictions placed on ‘declared goods’ are applicable even while levying tax on works contract. Further, tax cannot be imposed on full value of contract. The tax is on ‘transfer of property in goods involved in execution of works contract.’ Thus, tax on works contract can be levied only on ‘value of goods involved’ and not on whole value of works contract.Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Rajasthan - This is also an important judgment on ‘Works Contract' (1993) 66 Taxman 229 = (1993) 10 CLA 56 (SC) = 1992 (3) SCALE 173 = 1993 AIR SCW 2621 = (1993) 1 SCC 364 = (1993) 88 STC 204 (SC - 5 member bench judgment)]. Here, it was held that taxable event is the transfer of property in the goods involved in the execution of a works contract. The said transfer of property takes place when goods are incorporated in the works. Hence, value of goods at the time of incorporation in the works can constitute measure for levy of tax. However, cost of incorporation of the goods in works contract cannot be made part of measure for the levy of tax. It was held that value of goods involved in works contract would have to be considered for taxation on works contract. Charges for labour and services have to be deducted from total value of works contract. Moreover, tax cannot be levied on goods which are not taxable under sections 3, 4 and 5 of CST and goods covered under sections 14 and 15 of CST. If contractor is not able to give detailed break up, legislature can prescribe scales for deductions permissible on account of cost of labour and services for various types of works contract. It is permissible to have a uniform rate for works contract. This rate may be different from the rates applicable to individual goods. The judgment in this case was subsequently followed in Builders’ Association of India v. State of Karnataka - (1993) 88 STC 248 = AIR 1993 SC 991 = (1993) 1 SCC 409 = 1993 AIR SCW 152 (SC - 5 member bench).In Daelim Industrial Co. v. State of Assam (2003) 130) STC 53 (Gau HC), it was held that in case of works contract, tax is payable only of value of goods and not on cost of design and engineering.State of Kerala v. Builders Association - In State of Kerala v. Builders Association of India - 1996 (8) SCALE 730 = (1997) 104 STC 134 = (1997) 2 SCC 183 = AIR 1997 SC 3640 = 1997 AIR SCW 977 (SC), the position was that a convenient, hassle-free and simple method, which was 'rough and ready method' was evolved by State Government for collection of sales tax on Works Contract. This was optional to assessee. It was held that legislature can evolve such alternate, simplified and hassle-free methods of assessment, making it optional to assessee. - . - In the field of taxation, legislation must be allowed greater 'play in joints'. Allowance must be made for 'trial and error' by the legislature. - - In Mycon Construction v. State of Karnataka 2002 AIR SCW 2156 = 127 STC 105 (SC), it was held that a simplified composition scheme instead of regular assessment, can be evolved, if it is on optional basis. Validity of such provision has been upheld.Other judgments - In Cooch Bihar Contractors Assn v. State of West Bengal (1996) 103 STC 477 (SC), it was observed that State Legislature can tax all the goods involved in works contract at a uniform rate which may be different from the rates applicable to individual goods which are involved in execution of works contract.Government can make a provision allowing contractors option to opt for composition by paying a sum based on total consideration of contract. - Mytcon Construction v. State of Karnataka (1998) 111 STC 322 (Karn HC).Royalty payable can be included for purpose of works contract tax – If contractor has to pay royalty and property gets transferred to him, it can be included for purpose of works contract tax. – Cooch Bihar Contractors Assn v. State of West Bengal (1996) 103 STC 477 (SC) – followed in B Seenaiah v. CTO (2001) 124 STC 248 (AP HC DB). However, in ACTO v. R K Constructions (2001) 124 STC 701 (Raj HC), it was held that if material is supplied by Government to contractor for use in Government contract, there is no ‘transfer of property in goods’ to contractor and no sales tax is leviable, even if Government had collected royalty. Sale price for purpose of CST – So far, no specific provision has been made in CST and hence ‘sale price’ will have to be determined on basis of definition of ‘sale price’ as contained in section 2(h) of CST Act. As per this definition, freight or delivery or the cost of installation is not includible when separately charged. Thus, value of goods involved will have to be calculated excluding these charges.‘C’ form can be supplied/ received for purchases / sales for works contract - Many High Courts have held that ‘C’ form can be issued for purchase of goods which are used in works contract. The dealer is entitled to registration and he can receive sales tax forms in respect of his sales. See the discussions under ‘C Form’ in a later chapter. These judgments pertain to period prior to 11-5-2002.After amendment of definition of ‘sale’ w.e.f. 11-5-2002, now C form can certainly be issued as ‘works contract’ has been specifically included in definition of ‘sale’.CST on works contract - Central Sales Tax will be payable on goods involved in works contract, if goods move from one State to another on account of such works contract from 11th May 2002 onwards. Works contract of movable property - There can certainly be inter State works contract in case of movable property e.g. printing contracts. In fact, Central sales tax can be levied on any goods involved in works contract in case of movable property.Works contract in case of immovable property - One interesting question that is likely to arise is whether there can be ‘goods involved in works contract’ if finally the article becomes immovable property in other State. For example, if a dealer undertakes supply and erection of machinery in other State, whether it will be a ‘inter State works contract’. In the opinion of author, it will be held so, as the movement of goods from one State to another certainly occasions on account of the works contract. - - It must be remembered that in case of works contract, the sales tax is on ‘goods involved in the execution of contract’ whether the property passes as goods or in some other form. There is no CST on ‘works contract’ as such. Thus, CST on works contract is really only on goods involved, which certainly move from one State to another.It may be noted that a ‘sale’ can be inter-State even if property in goods is transferred in other State.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Work contract tax
REVERSE MORTGAGE SCHEME, 2008
The Central Government has brought out a scheme for the purpose of senior citizens to face monetary problems. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 47(xvi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Central Government made the scheme called as 'Reverse Mortgage Scheme, 2008' ('scheme' for short). The scheme came into force from the 1st day of April, 2008.
Reverse mortgage is defined as mortgage of a capital asset by an eligible person against a loan obtained by him from an approved lending institution. The scheme provides a list of approved lending institution as follows:
National Housing Bank established under Sec. 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987;
· A scheduled bank included in the second schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; or
· A housing finance company registered with the National Housing bank.
The scheme defines the term 'reverse mortgagor' as the eligible person who has mortgaged the capital asset for the purpose of obtaining loan. Then the question arises who is the eligible person. The scheme also defines the term 'eligible person' as-
Any person, being an individual, who is of, or above, the age of sixty years; or
· Any married couple, if either of the husband or wife is of, or above, the age of sixty years.
Reverse Mortgage transaction, according to the scheme is a transaction in which the loan may be disbursed to the reverse mortgagor but does not include transaction of sale, or disposal of the property for settlement of loan.
PROCEDURE:
1. Any eligible person may enter into a reverse mortgage transaction by applying in writing to the approved lending institution, if the capital asset, being mortgaged is owned by him and free from encumbrances;
2. The approved lending institution on receipt of the application shall process the application received from the eligible person and it may charge nominal amount as processing fees;
3. The approved lending institution, before taking mortgage of capital asset and before disbursing any loan under reverse scheme shall enter into a loan agreement in writing with the reverse mortgagor and obtain and maintain the following particulars from the reverse mortgagor-
Name and address of the owner of the capital asset;
· Permanent Account Number of the owner of the capital asset;
· Total area, including built up or covered area, of the capital asset;
· Cost of acquisition and the year of acquisition of the capital asset;
· Cost of improvement and the year of improvement of the capital asset;
· Name, address and Permanent Account Number of all the legal heirs and estate of the owner of the capital asset;
· A copy of the registered will of the owner of the capital asset including any changes made therein during the currency of the term of the loan.
4. The approved lending institution may disburse the loan to the reverse mortgagor either by period payments to be decided mutually between the approved lending institution and the reverse mortgagor or lump sum payment in one more trenches, to the extent that the aggregate of the amount disbursed as lump sum payments does not exceed fifty per cent of the total loan amount sanctioned.
5. The period of mortgage shall not be exceeding twenty years from the date of signing the agreement by the reverse mortgagor and the approved lending institution.
6. The reverse mortgagor, or his legal heirs or estate, shall be liable for repayment of the principal amount of loan along with the interest to the approved lending institution at the time of foreclosure of the loan agreement.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Limited Liability Partnership
Parliament Passes Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Bill 2008
15/12/2008
Parliament has passed the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Bill 2008. Lok Sabha today gave its assent to the Bill which was earlier passed by the Rajya Sabha. Replying to the debate on the Bill in the Lok Sabha, Shri Prem Chand Gupta, Minister for Corporate Affairs, expressed the hope that the first ever LLP in the country would be registered by the first day of the new Financial Year i.e. 1.4.2009. In this context he informed the Hose that concept LLP Rules have already been placed on the website of the Ministry. Shri Gupta also assured the House that registration of LLPs will also be a paperless affair as it will also be covered under MCA-21 e-governance program of the Ministry. Regarding taxation, Shri Gupta said that as the matter relates to the Finance Ministry, this concern will be taken care of by that Ministry, but he assured the House that Indian LLPs will in no way be put to any disadvantage and our LLPs will have a level playing field with other similar bodies outside the country.
LLP is a new corporate form that enables professional expertise and entrepreneurial initiative to combine, organize and operate in an innovative and efficient manner.
For a long time, a need has been felt to provide for a business format that would combine the flexibility of a partnership and the advantages of limited liability of a company at a low compliance cost.
The Limited Liability Partnership format is an alternative corporate business vehicle that provides the benefits of limited liability of a company but allows its members the flexibility of organizing their internal management on the basis of a mutually arrived agreement, as is the case in a partnership firm. This format would be quite useful for small and medium enterprises in general and for the enterprises in services sector in particular. Internationally, LLPs are the preferred vehicle of business particularly for service industry or for activities involving professionals.
In our country, several expert groups have examined the need for such a concept since 1972 and recommended from time to time, the enactment of a law that would enable the setting up and functioning of the LLPs. These include the Abid Hussain Committee 1997, the Naresh Chandra Committee on Private Companies and Partnerships 2003 and the Irani Committee for new Company Law, 2005.
As proposed in the Bill, LLP shall be a body corporate and a legal entity separate from its partners. It will have perpetual succession. While the LLP will be a separate legal entity, liable to the full extent of its assets, the liability of the partners would be limited to their agreed contribution in the LLP.
Further, no partner would be liable on account of the independent or unauthorized actions of other partners, thus allowing individual partners to be shielded from joint liability created by another partner’s wrongful business decisions or misconduct.
Today, the world is in the grip of an unprecedented financial crisis, which is adversely affecting economies of most of the countries, including our own. In such a situation, availability of LLP as an alternative business vehicle to our trade and industry will be an important step. Service industry has grown considerably in India and it accounts for nearly half of our GDP. We believe that the LLPs would further contribute to the growth of the service industry in the future.
An earlier version of the LLP Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha around 2 years ago on 15th December, 2006 and was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance. The Standing Committee submitted its report on 27th November, 2007. Taking into consideration the suggestions of the August Committee, the revised Bill, namely the Limited Liability Partnership Bill, 2008 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 21st October, 2008. The House passed it on 24th October, 2008.
The salient features of the LLP Bill, 2008 are as under:‑
(i) The LLP will be an alternative corporate business vehicle that would give the benefits of limited liability but would allow its members the flexibility of organizing their internal structure as a partnership based on an agreement.
(ii) The proposed Bill does not restrict the benefit of LLP structure to certain classes of professionals only and would be available for use by any enterprise which fulfills the requirements of the Act.
(iii)While the LLP will be a separate legal entity, liable to the full extent of its assets, the liability of the partners would be limited to their agreed contribution in the LLP. Further, no partner would be liable on account of the independent or un-authorized actions of other partners, thus allowing individual partners to be shielded from joint liability created by another partner’s wrongful business decisions or misconduct.
(iv) LLP shall be a body corporate and a legal entity separate from its partners. It will have perpetual succession. Indian Partnership Act, 1932 shall not be
applicable to LLPs and there shall not be any upper limit on number of partners in an LLP unlike a ordinary partnership firm where the maximum number of partners can not exceed 20.
(iv) An LLP shall be under obligation to maintain annual accounts reflecting true and fair view of its state of affairs. Since tax matters of all entities in India are addressed in the Income Tax Act, 1961, the taxation of LLPs shall be addressed in that Act.
(v) Provisions have been made in the Bill for corporate actions like mergers, amalgamations etc.
(vii) While enabling provisions in respect of winding up and dissolutions of LLPs have been made in the Bill, detailed provisions in this regard would be provided by way of rules under the Act.
Monday, December 15, 2008
New Companies Bill
Sapna Dogra Singh / New Delhi December 12, 2008, 0:48 IST
The new Companies Bill 2008, which is before the standing committee of Parliament, for the first time has fixed responsibility and accountability on the top management instead of leaving it loose and broad-based as in the existing Companies Act. The draft Companies Bill 2008 has identified the three key managerial positions as chief executive officer (CEO), chief finance officer (CFO) and company secretary (CS).
By recognising these three key managerial positions, the Bill is fixing responsibility to bring out a system which is more accountable, transparent and workable, according to an official at the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). It would be mandatory to mention the names of people holding these three positions in the annual report of the company.
In the present system, it is the ‘officer in default’ who is held responsible for offences committed by a company. However, the definition of ‘officer in default’ is so vast in the Companies Act of 1956 that it is virtually impossible to put the blame on anyone.
“This is an era of self regulation where you need a team of competent professionals at helm who can be held responsible,” said NK Jain, secretary and CEO of the Institute of Companies Secretaries of India (ICSI). This will have a positive impact, added Jain.
Besides bringing accountability and transparency in companies, by recognising the three key managerial personnel, the draft Bill has provided relief to the honorary directors and independent directors and the non-executive members of the company.
In the existing Companies Act, the term ‘officer in default’ encompasses all the senior officials in a company, which include all directors both executive, non-executive and independent. In case of any offence or lapse, any one of them could be made responsible even if they have nothing to do with the actual business of the company, stated Pawan Jain, company secretary of the Abhishek Industries — a leading textiles company in the country.
He cites a recent example in which a leading Bollywood star was implicated because a cheque, issued by a company where the actor was an honorary director, got bounced and the person reportedly filed a suit against the actor.
Also, said Jain, in cases where companies have not filed their returns, action can be taken against anyone in the company under the definition of ‘offer in default’ and hence the new draft Bill will give respite to companies from such incidents.
The draft Bill aims to ensure financial integrity, corporate governance and risk management in the companies, said E Balaji, CEO of Ma Foi Management Consultants.
Many public sector companies feel that this would bring good governance in the companies. The bill is a good step in bringing corporate responsibility by giving statutory recognition to the role of CFO, said DK Saraf, CFO of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation.
Another important step that the draft Bill has proposed is doing away with the need for central government approval for appointments and fixing remuneration of the key managerial positions. It also envisage removal of the ceiling on managerial remuneration based on net profits.
However, AK Singhal, director (finance) NTPC, feels that this wouldn’t be applicable to state-owned companies as the government would continue to fix their remuneration.
360 degree feedback
Performance-appraisal data collected from 'all around' an employee-his or her peers, subordinates, supervisors, and sometimes, from internal and external customers. Its main objective usually is to assess training and development needs and to provide competence-related information for succession planning-not promotion or pay increase. Also called multi-rater assessment, multi-source assessment, multi-source feedback.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Deflation
A decline in general price levels, often caused by a reduction in the supply of money or credit. Deflation can also be brought about by direct contractions in spending, either in the form of a reduction in government spending, personal spending or investment spending. Deflation has often had the side effect of increasing unemployment in an economy, since the process often leads to a lower level of demand in the economy. opposite of inflation.
Advance tax versus TDS
Advance tax versus TDS
The tax deductible at source has to be excluded while computing the advance tax liability, even if the tax had not actually been deducted.
The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), G-Bench, Delhi, in the DCIT vs Pride Foramer SAS (2008 24(II) ITCL 259) case has decided an interesting issue concerning tax deducted at source (TDS), advance tax and charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee before the assessing officer (AO) was a non-resident French company, which had engaged employees of an associate company for providing technical services in connection with offshore drilling in India.
Tax not deducted at source
The AO noticed that these employees drew salaries exceeding the exemption limit and, therefore, passed an order under Section 163(1), read with Section 143(3), treating the French company as agent of the technicians and made assessments on it on income from salary and perquisites received by these technicians.
Since no tax was deducted at source from the salaries paid and no advance tax was paid for such employees, the AO charged interest under Section 234B(1) of the Act also.
On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the entire income of the foreign technicians was liable to TDS and, therefore, as per Section 209(1)(d) the tax payable for the purpose of advance tax was required to be reduced by the tax ‘deductible at source’.
Since the entire tax payable was deductible at source, there was no advance tax payable by the assessees and, hence, the AO was directed to delete the interest charged under Section 234B. Against this order of the CIT(A), the I-T Department went on appeal before the ITAT.
The Revenue’s contention before the ITAT was that the Section 191 was not overridden by Section 209 and, therefore, once the tax had not been deducted at source, the same was payable as advance tax.
Tribunal’s view
The Tribunal did not agree with this view of the Department. It held that Section 191 along with Section 190 falls in Part-A of Chapter XII, which relates to collection and recovery of tax.
Section 190 relates to deduction at source and advance payment, and provides that notwithstanding that regular assessment in respect of any income is to be made in a later assessment year, tax on such income shall be payable by deduction or collection at source or by advance payment, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the chapter. Section 191 provides for another mode of collection of tax by way of direct payment.
Therefore, even if Section 191 is not overridden by Section 209, the amount payable by the assessee direct under Section 191 in cases where tax had not been deducted at source, is not the amount payable as advance tax.
The amount payable as advance tax has to be computed under Section 209, which is a specific provision for this purpose. Under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 209, the tax deductible at source has to be excluded while computing the advance tax payable.
Had the legislature wanted that only the tax actually deducted at source or collected at source should be excluded, it would not have used the words ‘tax deductible at source’ or ‘collectible at source’.
‘Deductible at source’
The phrase ‘deductible at source’ has not been used casually or without any purpose. There is a reasoning for excluding the ‘tax deductible at source’ because in cases where tax has not been deducted at source by the person responsible, the said person is deemed to be assessee-in-default under Section 201 in respect of whole or any part of tax, which had not been deducted at source and he is also liable for payment of interest and penalty under the said section.
Since the ‘tax deductible at source’, in case not deducted, could be recovered with interest from the person responsible for deducting the same at source, the ‘tax deductible’ has been excluded from the advance tax liability of the assessee.
Section 191 contains only an alternative mode of recovery so that in case tax could not be recovered from the person responsible in case of default, it could be collected from the assessee, who is primarily responsible for paying the tax. The section does not say that the same is payable as advance tax. The tax deductible at source has to be excluded while computing the advance tax liability as provided in Section 209(1)(d), even if the tax had not actually been deducted. In the case before the ITAT, the entire income of the assessee was deductible at source.
Therefore, no advance tax was payable by the technician employees and, as a result, there would be no case for charging interest under Section 234B of the Act. Hence, the ITAT has held that the order of the CIT(A), directing the AO to delete the interest charged under Section 234B, is correct.
ITAT to decide on tax cases within three months
HC directs ITAT to decide on tax cases within three months
MUMBAI: Corporate taxpayers can now hope for speedy justice. The Bombay High Court has set aside an order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal
(ITAT) on the ground that the tribunal took four months to deliver the order. Delivering the order, a division bench comprising Justice VC Daga and Justice S Radhakrishnan observed that justice delayed is justice denied, but justice withheld is even worse. Observing that often orders are passed four to 10 months after the tax cases have been heard, the court issued a guideline to the ITAT asking it not to take more than three months to give an order. The division bench also directed ITAT that its order should be self-containing and reasoned. HC gave this order on an appeal filed by Shivsagar Veg Restaurant. The appeal was based on the inordinate delay by ITAT in giving out the order. The taxpayer also alleged non-application of mind as the order did not furnish reasons in detail, did not discuss the issues raised by the taxpayer and did not cite the case laws. The HC said that since ITAT is the final authority on facts, the tribunal is required to appreciate the evidence, consider the reasons of the authorities below and assign its own reasons as to why it disagreed with the findings of the authority below. This would help the HC, where appeals are filed on questions of law, to have a clearer understanding of the issues that come up before it, the division bench said. “Merely because the tribunal happens to be an appellate authority, it does not get the right to brush aside reasons or the findings recorded by the first authority or the lower appellate authority. It has to examine the validity of the reasons and findings recorded,” the bench added. K Shivram, who appeared for Shivsagar Veg Restaurant told ET: “ITAT president Vimal Gandhi had issued detailed guidelines (on speedy clearance) to ITAT members sometime ago. However, those guidelines are not being followed by the ITAT members.”
Rent -a -Cab is Input Service
The answer is yes.
While referring the meaning of Input Service assigned to rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, honorable tribunal has held that:
"From the above definition, it is very clear that the input services besides being used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearances of final products from the place of removal includes a plethora of other services such as service used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of factory, premises of provider of input service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales, activities of business, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment, quality control, training and coaching etc. and therefore its scope is much larger than being used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture. The decision cited by Revenue are therefore not relevant as those decisions have not considered the inclusive part of input service as defined under rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules and these decisions have only considered the term in or in relation to the manufacture. Since Rent-a-Cab service is used for bringing employees to work in the factory for manufacture of goods it has to be considered as being used indirectly in relation to the manufacture or as part of business activity for promoting the business as any facility given to the employees will result in greater efficiency and promotion of business."
Refund of Service Tax paid in excess wrongly
Where it is found that that service tax has been paid in excess wrongly - department should refund the same on making an application for refund the same.
In the instant case, CESTAT has refused to allow the claim of refund on the ground that
"…..that since the assessee had not challenged the assessment order, the claim of refund cannot be entertained, so as to indirectly challenge the assessment order, without filing statutory appeal, against the assessment order. It was also found, that in the case in hand, the order is appelable and no appeal having been filed, the claim of refund has no merit, and the appeal was dismissed."
In this matter, Honorable High Court of Rajasthan held that:"At the outset, it may be observed, that under the scheme of things, starting from Section 73 onwards it is clear, that the assessee himself is to deposit service tax in form ST-3, there is no provision for assessment. Passing of assessment order is contemplated only in cases where the notice is issued under Section 73, and it is found, that service tax is not levied or paid, or has been short levied or short paid etc. In that view of the matter, the very basis/reasonings given by the learned Tribunal, simply have no legs to stand. Admittedly, the appeal under Section 85 lies against a specific order of the concerned authority in Form ST-4, which requires to disclose, designation and address of the officer passing the decision or order appealed against, and the date of decision or order, so also the date of communication of the decision or order appealed against to the appellant. Admittedly, when no order capable of being appealed against, had ever been passed, it cannot be said that the assessee could file appeal against the assessment order, and not having so filed appeal he cannot lay the claim of refund. Thus, the order of the Tribunal cannot sustain."