To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
M/s ICICI Econet Internet and Technology Fund &
Ors. v. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore &
Ors1
Karnataka High Court (‘the Court’) allowing a batch of
several appeals against the Tribunal (CESTAT) ruling, held that a
trust structure is not liable for Service Tax, when it deals with
monies collected as an investment fund. The Court held that Venture
Capital Fund (trust) and its Investors (‘contributors’)
cannot be regarded as separate entities and applying the doctrine
of mutuality, no person can serve himself/herself, for which
reasons there is no service that could be taxed.
Facts of the case
- India Advantage Fund III etc all are Venture Capital Trusts
(‘the Petitioner’/’trust’) established under the
Indian Trust Act, 1882. Contributors contribute money to the trust
fund, which is managed by Investment Managers. - On the back of an investigation by the Anti-Evasion Unit, it
was proposed that the trusts were liable to pay Service Tax on the
retained portion of monies distributable to the contributors
– such retention was regarded as service charges/fee for
managing the assets of the trust. A show cause notice was issued to
the Appellant proposing to demand service tax on ‘expenses
incurred by the assessee’ and ‘the amount paid to Class C
investors as return on investment. - The matter travelled to the Tribunal, who confirmed the demand
and held that a trust is a person for the purposes of the law of
Service Tax. The Tribunal held that ‘carried interest’ is
neither interest nor return on investment, but a portion of the
consideration retained by the taxpayer for the services rendered to
the investors and passed on, in the disguise of return on
investments, to Class C unit holders, i.e. the Investment
Manager. - The Tribunal also held that the trust has violated the
principles of mutuality by concerning themselves in commercial
activity and the services provided by the Trust amounts to asset
management services which falls under the taxable service category
of banking & other financial services. The trusts / funds
appealed this decision to the High Court.
Appellant ‘s Contention
- The trust is a pass-through entity and does not provide
services, and so, Service Tax is not leviable on the retained
portion, for the following reasons: -
- The trust does not qualify as a ‘person’.
- Activities undertaken by a trust are covered under by the
principle of mutuality, as the contributors and the trust cannot be
dissected as two separate persons. – Investment Manager provides
services of asset management to the contributors, and the trust is
a ‘pass through’, wherein funds from the contributors are
consolidated and managed.
Revenue’s Contention
- The appeal is not maintainable as it involves the question of
rate of duty/tax and, therefore the appeal shall lie to the Supreme
Court. - The trust is a separate legal entity, as it is registered under
Venture Capital Fund Regulations issued under Securities and
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (‘SEBI’). Moreover, it
has a PAN, operates a bank account, deducts tax at source (TDS),
obtains variety of approvals etc. which are attributes of a
‘person’ and thus, the claim of the Appellant was
improper. - Definitions in the contribution agreements and other documents
indicate a relationship between a buyer and a seller as the phrase
used is ‘purchase of units’ and thus the doctrine of
mutuality does not apply to the instant facts. Further, various
articles of Indenture of Trust of the fund are contrary to the
principle of mutuality. - The trusts the fund accepts money from investors and makes
profit by re-investing and distributes the profits to investors;
and retains some portion of the same to its benefit.
Discussion and findings
- The instant appeal involves the question of levy of tax, and
there is no dispute as to the rate of duty/tax, thus, the said
appeal is maintainable before the High Court and does not lie to
the Supreme Court. The Court relied on the decision in
Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. M/s
Shriram Refrigeration Industries2 . - Though various statutes such as that of SEBI, GST, IBC etc.
recognize ‘trust’ as a person however, the Finance Act,
1944 (that contains the law of Service Tax) does not regard a trust
as a person. The question involved in the appeals are with regard
to payment of Service Tax under the Finance Act, 1944 hence, the
contention of the Revenue-Department that the trusts are a
‘person’ is not legally tenable. The Court held that trusts
are not juridical person as per and for the purposes of the Finance
Act, 1994. - The trusts act as a pass through, wherein funds from
contributors are consolidated and invested by the investment
manager. It acts as a trustee holding the money belonging to
contributors to be invested as per the advice of the Investment
Manager. Trusts neither provide any services nor make any profit
and so, with the result that no monies are left over with it after
distribution to the contributors and payment of expenses. Hence,
imposition of Service tax is not sustainable. - Money is contributed by the institutional investors,
(contributors) and held by the trust. Doctrine of mutuality applies
when commonality is established and, in the instant case the
Appellant acts as a trustee holding money belonging to the
contributors, which is invested as per the advice of Investment
Manager. Thus, these (contributors and respective trusts) cannot be
dissected as two different entities. It was noted that there cannot
be service to self, much less tax on it.
Judgement
- Based on the above findings, the High Court allowed the
appeals, adjudging the matter in the favour of the Appellants.
Dhruva Comments
This judgment reinforces the industry-wide position and
practice. The Court considered the substance of the arrangement and
transactions, rather than its form to render its ruling.
The ratio of this judgement will be tested in the GST regime and
beneficially deployed too. Even though definition of the term
‘person’ includes ‘trust’ and, the concept of
mutuality is nearly neutralised by the Explanation to the term
‘supply’, which stipulates that inter se transactions
between a person and its members are deemed to be liable, it can be
inferred from the judgement that there is no service (supply) as
also no consideration in the arrangement (between contributors and
trusts), whereas, the trusts act as a pass through. This judgment
should allay concerns of applicability of GST to the Venture
Capital Funds / Alternate Investment Funds and the like.
Footnotes
1. TS-52-HC-2024(KAR)-ST
2. 2022-VIL-76-SC-CE
Originally published 05 March 2024
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration from India
#Managing #Investors #Money #Trust #Structure #Liable #Service #Tax #Trials #Appeals #Compensation