Mc Dowell & Company Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer | |
---|---|
Court | Supreme Court of India |
Full case name | Mc Dowell & Company Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer |
Decided | April 17, 1985 |
Citation | 1986 AIR SC 649, 1985 SCR (3) 791, (1985) 22 Taxman 11 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | O. Chinnappa Reddy, Misra Rangnath, Y. V. Chandrachud, D.A. Desai, E.S. Venkataramiah |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Misra Rangnath for the majority and O. Chinnappa Reddy concurring but separate opinion |
Concurrence | All |
Dissent | None |
McDowell & Company Limited vs CTO (1986 AIR 649) is one of the earliest cases in independent India dealing with the concepts of tax planning and Tax Evasion. The case pertained to whether excise duty paid is a part of "turnover," for the computation of sales tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1947 of a liquor manufacturer when the excise duty is paid directly by the purchaser to the government exchequer. The Court upheld the legitimacy of tax planning in India and dealt with the legitimacy of transaction structuring to avoid payment of tax. [1]
Manufacture, sale-wholesale and retail including storage and transport of liquor in Andhra Pradesh is regulated by the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder. The manufacturer (McDoweel in the present case) is required to pay excise duty before removing liquor from distilleries. In the given case, the purchasers paid excise duty directly to the government to obtain distillery passes for removing liquor from distilleries.
Manufacturers are required to pay sales tax as a percentage of total turnover under the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Sales Tax Act). The appellant manufacturer paid sales tax based on its turnover which excluded excise duty. Notably, the invoices raised by the manufacturer do not include excise duty deposited by the purchaser to the exchequer on behalf of the manufacturer. The company was assessed for sales tax based on its returns but later the Commercial Tax Officer was of the view that the manufacturer had failed to include the excise duty paid on the liquor sold by it as part of the turnover. The tax authority accordingly called upon McDowell's to show cause why assessments made may not be reopened.
In an earlier case ([1977] 1 S.C.R. 914), [2] for the same appellant company, a division bench of the Supreme Court held that excise duty did not go into the common till of the appellant manufacturer and therefore is not part of the turnover for computation of sales tax. Subsequently, the rules under the Excise Act were amended and a similar question arose again under the amended rules. When the matter came up again before the Supreme Court, the correctness of the earlier decision was questioned and the matter was referred to a constitutional bench.
The Court held that the excise duty was primarily a burden which the manufacturer had to bear, even if the purchasers paid the same under the Distillery Rules. The Court held that excise duty though paid by the purchaser to meet the liability of the manufacturer, is a part of the consideration for the sale and is includible in the turnover of the manufacturer. Justice Mishra delivering the decision for the majority held that ‘tax planning may be legitimate, provided it is within the framework of the law'. However, it also held that ‘colourable devices cannot be a part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage the belief that it is honourable to avoid payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods'. [3]
A separate concurring judgement was delivered by O. Chinnappa Reddy detailing tax avoidance and held as follows:
47. It is neither fair not desirable to expect the legislature to intervene and take care of every device and scheme to avoid taxation. It is up to the Court to take stock to determine the nature of the new and sophisticated legal devices to avoid tax and consider whether the situation created by the devices could be related to the existing legislation with the aid of 'emerging' techniques of interpretation was done in Ramsay 1982 AC 300, Burma Oil 1982 STC 30 and Dawson 1984-1 All ER 530, to expose the devices for what they are and to refuse to give judicial benediction.
The judgement in the McDoweel case and the matter of tax avoidance was again reconsidered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (‘Azadi Bachao') in 2003, in which a three-member bench of the Supreme Court opined that the opinion of the majority is far from the opinion of Justice Chinnappa Reddy and opined that not every attempt at tax planning is to be seen as illegitimate. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings B.V vs Union of India & Anr in 2012 ruled that there was no conflict between McDowell and Azadi Bachao decisions and there was no need for reconsideration of the Azadi Bachao decision by a larger bench. [4]
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U.S. 562 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which two out-of-state corporations objected to ad valorem taxes imposed upon accounts receivable derived from goods manufactured in Ohio, though these accounts were not used in conducting business in Ohio. The court ruled that the tax violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
A sales tax is a tax paid to a governing body for the sales of certain goods and services. Usually laws allow the seller to collect funds for the tax from the consumer at the point of purchase.
Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1 (1913), was a 1913 United States Supreme Court decision involving whether a purchaser of a patented product bearing a price-fixing notice incurs guilt of patent infringement by reselling the product at a price lower than that which the notice commands. A divided Court (5–4) held that it was not.
Excise tax in the United States is an indirect tax on listed items. Excise taxes can be and are made by federal, state, and local governments and are not uniform throughout the United States. Certain goods, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and tobacco products, are taxed by multiple governments simultaneously. Some excise taxes are collected from the producer or retailer and not paid directly by the consumer, and as such, often remain "hidden" in the price of a product or service rather than being listed separately.
Entertainment tax also sometimes referred to as "amusement tax" is any tax levied on any form of commercial entertainment, such as movie tickets, exhibitions, sport events and more. The specific rules such as the tax rate of entertainment tax and cases of tax exemption are subject to local authorities, as is their collection. The entertainment tax has in the most cases the form of indirect tax, which is levied on buyer. Nowadays, the most discussed subject of those taxes are their implementations to online services, especially the ones working on streaming basis such as Netflix, Spotify and others.
Sales taxes in the United States are taxes placed on the sale or lease of goods and services in the United States. Sales tax is governed at the state level and no national general sales tax exists. 45 states, the District of Columbia, the territories of Puerto Rico, and Guam impose general sales taxes that apply to the sale or lease of most goods and some services, and states also may levy selective sales taxes on the sale or lease of particular goods or services. States may grant local governments the authority to impose additional general or selective sales taxes.
Income taxes are the most significant form of taxation in Australia, and collected by the federal government through the Australian Taxation Office. Australian GST revenue is collected by the Federal government, and then paid to the states under a distribution formula determined by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
Peterswald v Bartley is an early High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.
Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying customs or excise duties. Although some of the judges used the now-discredited criterion of liability approach, this case remains authority for cases that are factually similar to it.
R v Barger is a 1908 High Court of Australia case where the majority held that the taxation power could not be used by the Australian Parliament to indirectly regulate the working conditions of workers. In this case, an excise tariff was imposed on manufacturers, with an exemption being available for those who paid "fair and reasonable" wages to their employees.
Taxes in India are levied by the Central Government and the State Governments by virtue of powers conferred to them from the Constitution of India. Some minor taxes are also levied by the local authorities such as the Municipality.
An excise, or excise tax, is any duty on manufactured goods that is normally levied at the moment of manufacture for internal consumption rather than at sale. It is therefore a fee that must be paid in order to consume certain products. Excises are often associated with customs duties, which are levied on pre-existing goods when they cross a designated border in a specific direction; customs are levied on goods that become taxable items at the border, while excise is levied on goods that came into existence inland.
The Constitution of India establishes the structure of the Indian government, including the relationship between the federal government and state governments. Part XI of the Indian constitution specifies the distribution of legislative, administrative and executive powers between the union government and the States of India. The legislative powers are categorised under a Union List, a State List and a Concurrent List, representing, respectively, the powers conferred upon the Union government, those conferred upon the State governments and powers shared among them.
Taxation in Bhutan is conducted by the national government and by its subsidiary local governments. All taxation is ultimately overseen by the Bhutan Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Customs, which is part of the executive Lhengye Zhungtshog (cabinet). The modern legal basis for taxation in Bhutan derives from legislation. Several acts provide for taxation and enforcement only germane to their subject matter and at various levels of government, while a smaller number provide more comprehensive substantive tax law. As a result, the tax scheme of Bhutan is highly decentralized.
Prafulla Chandra Pant is an Indian judge and author who served as a judge of the Supreme Court of India from 2014 to 2017. He later served as a member of the National Human Rights Commission of India from 2019 to 2021, and briefly acted as its chairperson. Prior to his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of India, he had previously served as chief justice of the Meghalaya High Court at Shillong and as a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital.
Constitution bench is the name given to the benches of the Supreme Court of India which consist of at least five judges of the court which sit to decide any case “involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation” of the Constitution of India or "for the purpose of hearing any reference" made by the President of India under Article 143. This provision has been mandated by Article 145 (3) of the Constitution of India. Also, matters related to the Amendment of an Act of the Indian Parliament are referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court under the same act. The Chief Justice of India has the power to constitute a Constitution Bench and refer cases to it.
Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia prohibits the States from imposing customs duties and excise duties. The section bars the States from imposing any tax that would be considered to be of a customs or excise nature. While customs duties are easy to determine, the status of excise, as summarised in Ha v New South Wales, is that it consists of "taxes on the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods, whether of foreign or domestic origin." This effectively means that States are unable to impose sales taxes.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation was a 1985 case in the Supreme Court of India. It came before the Court as a written petition by pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay, seeking to be allowed to stay on the pavements against their order of eviction during the monsoon months by the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy is an Indian retired judge of the Karnataka High Court who was also the original petitioner, challenging the Government of India over making Aadhaar mandatory. He had filed a writ petition in 2012 and over the last five years, 26 other petitions have been tagged along with his, challenging the scheme.
S. Muralidhar is an Indian Judge. He is former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court.