Thursday, August 14, 2014

[aaykarbhavan] Judgments and Information [4 Attachments]






 Having wasted its resources into carrying out painstaking investigations over a period of two years into certain important cases, the country's premier investigating agency, the CBI, has now realised that "it should not probe the decisions" given quasi-judicial bodies or appellate tribunals, like Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). However, the agency may look into the matter only if it finds strong material evidence indicating "quid pro quo" on the part of any officials of these bodies. Talking to this newspaper, CBI director Ranjit Sinha said, "We have decided not to probe decisions taken by the quasi-judicial bodies in the country. Members of these bodies are protected under Judicial Protection Act." If the agency finds evidence of "quid pro quo" against officials of these bodies, then only the CBI will think of initiating probe against them, he said. The CBI recently closed its investigations in all 11 cases registered to probe decisions given by various benches of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal. In majority of the cases, the agency concluded that charges against judges of various benches "couldn't be substantiated". Initially, the agency had registered 13 preliminary enquiries (PEs) to probe decisions given by the ITAT benches, including Kolkata, Hyderabad, Chennai and Guwahati. "Out of these, five PEs were closed and remaining eight enquiries were converted into 11 regular cases. All these 11 cases have been closed and the agency has also filed closure reports before the competent courts," sources said. Investigations into only one case have not been closed so far because its a disproportionate assets (DA) case, they added. "The first PE related to ITAT was registered in April 2012 against 15 persons of the Kolkata bench. Role of at least 15 members of the bench, including its judicial members, was under the scanner of the agency. After two years of marathon investigations by the CBI sleuths, the agency closed its investigations on February 24,"

Does DTAA Overrides Service Tax in India?

 Import of Service
The Import of Service means that the Service which is being provided by a Service Provider who is located in Non-Taxable territory and the service recipient is located in taxable territory. In such circumstances, the Service Receiver is liable to pay service tax as per Sr. No. 10 of Notification 30/2012-ST dated 20-06-2012 subject to the exemptions granted under Item No. 34 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20-06-2012.
A question which brings many minds to dilemma is that whether the Indian Government can impose tax on matters of extra territorial jurisdiction. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that Article 245(2) of the Indian Constitution states that
"No law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra territorial operation."
It is worthwhile to note that the law should have territorial nexus with India without which the said Act shall be ultra vires as the matter is no longer res integra and the same has been decided in case of Electronics Corporation of India v. CIT [(1989) 183 ITR 43 (SC)].
Application of DTAA on Service tax
There is a general perception that DTAA is applied only to Income Tax Act, 1961 but this notion is not good in all cases. The DTAA can also be applied to Service Tax. In this connection, we must note the meaning of income. In common parlance, income refers to both gross receipts and net receipts. And it must be noted that DTAA applies to gross receipts in many cases such as Article 12 of DTAA is on 'gross amount of royalty and fees for technical services', Article 10 is on 'gross dividend'.
In view of the afore-said, it can be said that some of the agreements entered by India with other countries are not specifically for income tax but also on similar taxes. For instance, Article II of DTAA with Australia Notified vide GSR 60(E), dated 22-1-1992 states that
"This Agreement shall also apply to any identical or substantially similar taxes which are imposed under the federal law of the Commonwealth of Australia or the law of the Republic of India after the date of signature of this Agreement in addition to, or in place of, the existing taxes. The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall notify each other of any substantial changes which have been made in the laws of their respective States relating to the taxes to which this Agreement applies."
Hence, imposing service tax on gross receipts of royalties, technical services, etc. is taxing the same indirectly which cannot be taxed directly (Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum). In this regard, it can be noted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jagir Singh vs. Ranbir Singh [1979 SCC (1) 560] held that
"In order to cross the hurdle imposed by Section 397(3) it was suggested that the revision application before the High Court could be treated as an application directed against the order of the Sessions Judge instead or an one directed against the order of the Magistrate We do not think that it is permissible to do so. What may not be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly, that would be an evasion of the statute. It is a "well-known principle of law that the provisions of an Act of Parliament shall not be evaded by shift or contrivance" (per Abbott C.J. in Fox v. Bishop of Chester(1) "To carry out effectually the object of a Statute, it must be construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing, in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited or enjoined" (Maxwell, 11th edition, page 109). When the Sessions Judge refused to interfere with the order of the Magistrate, the High Court's jurisdiction was invoked to avoid the order of the Magistrate and not that of the Sessions Judge. The bar of Section 397(3) was, therefore, effectively attracted and the bar could not be circumvented by the subterfuge of treating the revision application as directed against the Session Judge's order."
Hence, if we appoint any lawyer for handling a case in Australia then it would not be taxable in India because of the application of make available clause. Hence, in our view no service tax should be levied on the recipient of such service as the DTAA overrides the domestic laws.
Disclaimer: This article is the property of the author. No one shall publish, reproduce or use it in any manner, for commercial purposes, without the permission of the author. The author shall not be responsible or liable for anything done or omitted to be done on the basis of this article.
                                                                             -   By Aditya Singhania & Nischal
- See more at: http://taxguru.in/service-tax/dtaa-overrides-service-tax-india.html#sthash.01gy6Mw9.dpuf


__._,_.___
View attachments on the web

Posted by: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com>


receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com





__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment