9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1177 - HC - Income TaxRecovery of dues - renewal of bank guarantee furnished earlier during the proceedings - Notices under Section 226(3) of the Act, treating the petitioner as an assessee in default Direction to the Standard Chartered Bank to remit an amount of ₹ 26,26,87,000/- to the department Held that - A perusal of the letter reveals that the Citi Bank has clearly stated that the bank guarantee is valid in their records and has been issued on behalf of the Motorola India Private Limited. It is not denied by the respondents that letter was received by the respondents before they appropriated money from the petitioner's account. It is, therefore, rather surprising as to how and why notices were issued, under Section 226(3) of the Act, treating the petitioner as an assessee in default and, thereafter, directing the Standard Chartered Bank to remit an amount of ₹ 26,26,87,000/- to the department. Perusal of the aforesaid bank guarantee reveals that renewal does not require any formal format, as the clauses reproduced above clearly envisage an automatic renewal for a period of three years except if the assessee does not furnish requisite documents regarding the bank guarantee to the bank and the bank, thereafter intimates the government 60 days before expiry of the bank guarantee that the guarantee shall expire on 28.02.2012 or on the happening of events enumerated in Clause 4 of the bank guarantee. Decided in favor of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notices dated 25.03.2013, 26.03.2013, and 28.03.2013 issued by respondent no. 2. 2. Appropriation of Rs.26,26,87,000/- from the petitioner's bank account. 3. Validity and renewal of the bank guarantee. 4. Adherence to the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) and the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty. 5. Compliance with the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Notices: The petitioner challenged the notices issued by respondent no. 2 on the grounds that they were arbitrary and violated the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty. The notices questioned whether the MAP had been admitted, despite the Joint Secretary's affidavit confirming the pendency of MAP proceedings. The court found that the notices were issued without proper verification and that the actions of respondent no. 2 were based on an erroneous interpretation of the treaty and CBDT instructions. 2. Appropriation of Rs.26,26,87,000/-: The petitioner argued that the appropriation of Rs.26,26,87,000/- from their bank account was illegal as the tax demand was already secured by a valid bank guarantee. The court noted that the revenue's action was premature and in violation of the treaty and CBDT instructions, which require suspension of tax collection during the pendency of MAP proceedings. The court directed the respondents to refund the appropriated amount, subject to the conclusion of MAP proceedings. 3. Validity and Renewal of the Bank Guarantee: The petitioner contended that the bank guarantee furnished on 04.03.2009 was still valid and had been confirmed by Citi Bank on 25.03.2013. The court examined the terms of the bank guarantee, which provided for automatic renewal unless the bank notified the government 60 days prior to its expiry. The court found no evidence that such a notice was issued by the bank, and thus, the bank guarantee was deemed to have been automatically renewed. The court rejected the revenue's claim that the bank guarantee had expired on 28.02.2012. 4. Adherence to MAP and the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the MAP and the treaty, which provide for suspension of tax collection during the pendency of MAP proceedings. The court criticized respondent no. 2 for drawing an artificial distinction between "pendency" and "admission" of MAP, which led to the wrongful appropriation of funds. The court upheld the petitioner's right to invoke MAP and directed the revenue to comply with the treaty and CBDT instructions. 5. Compliance with CBDT Instructions: The court noted that the CBDT instructions, particularly Instruction No. 10/2007, mandate the suspension of tax collection during the pendency of MAP proceedings, provided a valid bank guarantee is furnished. The court found that the revenue failed to adhere to these instructions, as the bank guarantee was valid and MAP proceedings were pending. The court directed the revenue to refund the appropriated amount and comply with the CBDT instructions. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned notices, and directed the respondents to refund Rs.26,26,87,000/- to the petitioner, subject to the conclusion of MAP proceedings within six months. The court emphasized the need for the revenue to adhere to international treaties and CBDT instructions, ensuring fair and consistent treatment of taxpayers invoking MAP.
|
