Sunday 7 December 2014

Parthasarathi Shome-headed Tax Administration Reform Commission recommends to the Government to reintroduce Fringe Benefit Tax and Banking Cash Transaction Tax


The Tax Administration Reform Commission (TARC) headed by economist Parthasarathi Shome has recommended, in its report submitted to the Union Government on Tuesday that the Government reintroduce the controversial fringe benefit tax (FBT) and the Banking Cash Transaction Tax (BCTT) that were originally introduced and later withdrawn by the UPA Government. 
The Commission headed by Parthasarathi Shome has recommended re-introduction of the Fringe Benefit Tax and the Banking Cash Transaction Tax
 The FBT, which taxes the perquisites provided by companies to their employees, was introduced as part of the Finance Act, 2005, as an additional income tax and came into force on 1 April 2005. However, it was withdrawn from assessment year (AY) 2010-11 after companies complained that it increased the compliance burden on employers.  Shome in his report says the introduction of FBT was a major step towards widening the tax base and bolstering direct tax collections. In fiscal year (FY) 2004-05, about Rs.4,000 crore was collected under this head. However, legislators and government officials were kept out of the purview of FBT. “This violated the principle of horizontal equity since some taxpayers enjoyed these benefits without attracting levy of tax, while others had to pay tax,” the report says. “A good tax that had the potential to reduce tax evasion and collected Rs.6,000 crore annually in revenue had to be abolished due to lack of horizontal equity and commensurate pressure from powerful lobbies who paid FBT. Reintroducing FBT, without the distinction that had been made earlier by keeping specific sections out of its purview, would be an effective measure to widen the direct tax base. This is a good temporary administrative measure for enhancing tax collection, until rising income tax collection makes it unnecessary,” reads the TARC report.

The banking cash transaction tax (BCTT) was introduced with effect from 1 June 2005, through the Finance Act, 2005, to track unaccounted-for money and trace its source and destination. BCTT was levied on cash withdrawals of more than Rs.50,000 a day for an individual or Hindu undivided family (HUF) and Rs.1 lakh for others from their bank accounts, other than savings accounts. It remained on the statute book for about four years and was withdrawn with effect from 1 April 2009.

The Commission said BCTT had enlarged the information system of the income tax department and that there was no other instrument at present by which such information was being captured. “With its withdrawal, an important source of information to monitor transactions of unaccounted money has dried up. The availability of information that was being collected through BCTT would certainly help the department widen the information base,” the report added. The commission said BCTT can be reinstated as an effective administrative measure if not by amending the Income Tax Act. 

The report recommends that the number of income taxpayers should be doubled from three crore to six crore in three years. The Commission was not in favour of a tax amnesty scheme. "Taxpayers keep waiting for amnesty schemes to be announced and take advantage of these schemes to build their capital. "Amnesty schemes also cause inequity among taxpayers, and there is no proof that they improve taxpayer behaviour among evaders. They, therefore, should not be encouraged through amnesties," said the report of Tax Administration and Reform Commission (TARC).

The Shome Commission in its third such report since it was constituted has also pitched for taxing large farmers with incomes above Rs.50 lakh a year. The report said agricultural income of non-agriculturists is being increasingly used as a conduit to avoid tax and for laundering funds, resulting in the loss of crores of rupees in annual tax revenue. “A solution could be to tax large farmers. Against a tax-free limit of Rs.5 lakh on agricultural income, farmers having a high agricultural income threshold, such as Rs.50 lakh, could be taxed. This will keep small farmers out of the purview of taxation and yet close one escape route for black money,” the commission said. The commission said states could pass a resolution under Article 252 of the Constitution authorizing the centre to impose tax on agricultural income and all such taxes collected by the centre, net of collection costs, could be transferred to the states. “For this purpose, of course, an across-the-board political consensus needs to develop, and be followed by appropriate amendments, laws and collection procedures to ensure effective implementation of such an important change. Obviously, the TARC realizes that this is a fundamental structural reform proposition. Yet, successive governments have shown a lack of political will to tax agricultural income because of the politically strong hold that the agricultural lobby has over governments,” it added.

Talking about other steps to widen tax net, it said : "There is a distinct aversion to paying taxes. A conducive environment and tax culture should be created to encourage them to pay their tax dues voluntarily." 

The Commission also recommended that wealth tax base can be increased by including intangible financial assets in the base while considerably raising the threshold and decreasing the wealth tax rate.

The Parthasarathi Shome Commission, appointed by the previous UPA government, in its report to the finance ministry also said that Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) should comprehensively identify reasons for the widening gap between PAN card holders and actual number of taxpayers. The Commission said that there is at present no structured mechanism for matching PAN with non-PAN data. “More data-based investigation is required to develop such a mechanism as this would contribute to deepening and widening of the tax base”. 

The report says that currently there is a perceptible gap between the potential and the existing number of taxpayers. The report said that the focus has to be on bringing in new taxpayers and targeting sectors that remain under-taxed or untaxed. 

The report noted that many small businesses in the informal economy elude the tax net and remain untaxed. “For these groups, the tax administration should design, promote, and establish simple, optional presumptive tax schemes, including those based on turnover or a compounding (turnover) basis, in service tax below a threshold", said the report.

The commission said TDS coverage should be expanded to capture more and more transactions, especially those that involve large amounts of cash but remain outside the tax net. It said exemptions and deductions based on area and industry should be minimised, if not done away with.

Noted economist Parthasarathi Shome was  given the task of heading the commission to streamline the country’s tax administration by the previous UPA Government, and it remains to be seen whether the TARC's recommendations would find favour with the present Government. 

Registered owner of vehicle not liable to pay compensation to claimant if the vehicle is not in his possession and control, holds the Supreme Court



Does ‘owner’ as defined under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cover a financier who has entered into a hypothecation agreement with the borrower, who is in possession and control of the vehicle?, and whether the financier, not in possession or control of the vehicle, can be mulcted with liability?– were the questions that confronted the Apex Court in a case that was decided recently1.

"a registered owner of the vehicle should not be held liable if the vehicle is not in his possession and control", ruled the Supreme Court in a recent case
Answering the issues in the negative, a Bench of the Apex Court comprising Justices Dipak Misra, Rohinton Nariman and U.U. Lalit, held that a registered owner of the vehicle should not be held liable if the vehicle is not in his possession and control.

First, the facts: On 20.12.2002 about 12.30 p.m., the claimant was going on a scooter when the Motor Cycle belonging to borrower and driven by another (3rd respondent in the case), in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter as a consequence of which she sustained injuries. Keeping in view, the injuries suffered and the amount she had spent in availing the treatment, she filed a claim petition putting forth the claim for Rs.4,50,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- with 6% interest to the claimant and opined that all the non-applicants to the claim petition were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/- by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in appeal.

The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant- Bank contended that it had only advanced a loan and the hypothecation agreement was executed on 1.11.2002 by it. As per the terms of the agreement, the owner of the vehicle was responsible to insure the vehicle at his own costs, and it could not be held liable.

The High Court referred to the definition clause in Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, took note of the language employed in Clause 16 of the agreement that if the owner neglects to get the vehicle insured the bank was required to get it insured, and the fact that the financer and the borrower were the registered owners and, accordingly opined that the bank was liable to pay. Being of this view the learned Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the bank and partly allowed the appeal of the claimants.

Though the Bank preferred an application to review the said judgment, it was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, whereupon the Bank approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court.

Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant-Bank submitted that the bank does not intend to recover anything from the claimant but the legal position should be made clear so that the bank, which is the financer, is not unnecessarily dragged into this kind of litigation.
“There is no stipulation in the agreement that the financer would indemnify the borrower against the third party in the event of an accident and in the absence of such a postulate the interpretation placed by the High Court is absolutely erroneous”, contended Mr. Subramanium. It was urged by him that the role of the bank would come in when there is failure to insure the vehicle and, in any case, that will not fasten a statutory liability on the financer to pay the compensation to the third party, for the vehicle is not on the road by the financer or at its instance. Elaborating further, he submitted by him that if the owner does not pay, the bank will pay the insurance company and recover it from the borrower and hence, it would be inapposite to interpret the contract in a different way to fasten the liability on the financer.

The respondents did not enter appearance in the case despite service of notice.

On a careful analysis of the principles stated in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation V. Kailash Nath Kothari & Others2, National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Deepa Devi & Ors3, Pushpa alias Leela and others V. Shakuntala and others4T.V. Jose (Dr.) V. Chacko P.M5, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation V. Kulsum and others5, and Purnya Kala Devi V. State of Assam & Anr.6 among others, the Apex Court found that there is a common thread that the person in possession of the vehicle under the hypothecation agreement has been treated as the owner.  

In Purnya Kala Devi (supra), the Court observed that a three-Judge Bench has categorically held that the person in control and possession of the vehicle under an agreement of hypothecation should be construed as the owner and not alone the registered owner and thereafter the Court has adverted to the legislative intention, and ruled that the registered owner of the vehicle should not be held liable if the vehicle is not in his possession and control.

The Apex Court accordingly held that when the intention of the legislature is quite clear to the effect that a registered owner of the vehicle should not be held liable if the vehicle is not in his possession and control and there is evidence on record that the borrower, without the insurance plied the vehicle in violation of the statutory provision contained in Section 146 of the 1988 Act, the High Court could not have mulcted the liability on the financier.

In coming to that conclusion, the Apex Court, relied on a line of decisions referred to above, including the one reported in Godavari Finance Company V. Degala Satyanarayanamma and others7, wherein the core question that arose for consideration was whether a financier would be an owner of the vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act. In that case the Apex Court had opined that in case of a motor vehicle which is subjected to a hire-purchase agreement, the financer cannot ordinarily be treated to be the owner. The person who is in possession of the vehicle, and not the financer being the owner would be liable to pay damages for the motor accident.

The Apex Court therefore had no hesitation in holding that the High Court had erroneously opined that the financier had the responsibility to get the vehicle insured, if the borrower failed to insure it. “The appreciation by the learned Single Judge in appeal, both in fact and law, is wholly unsustainable”, held the Apex Court.Accordingly, allowing the appeal filed by the Bank, the Apex Court held that the liability to satisfy the award is that of the owner, and not that of the financier and accordingly set aside that part of the direction in the award.

However, taking into account the concession made by Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the Bench directed that no steps shall be taken for realisation of the amount.
__________

1. C.A. Nos.  10608-10609 of 2014, decided on 01.12.2014
2. (1997) 7 SCC 481  
3. (2008) 1 SCC 414 
4. (2011) 2 SCC 240 
5 (2001) 8 SCC 748 
6. (2011) 8 SCC 142 
7. 2014 (4) SCALE 586 

Supreme Court issues circular restricting entry into Court rooms and Supreme Court premises to only those advocates wearing proper uniform




Following an incident on 24.11.2014, when an Advocate,wearing Black Gown,and Saffron colour long gown entered into the Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court which was viewed seriously by the Court, The Apex Court has issued a circular dated 02.12.2014 to the effect that in future, only Advocates in proper uniform will be allowed entry into the Court Rooms. 

The Supreme Court has requested all concerned to comply with the said direction issued by the Court and wear proper uniform while entering the Court rooms and Supreme Court premises. 
 
Supreme Court of India at New Delhi
  The circular issued by the Supreme Court can be accessed here