Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1396

Availability of SFIS benefit

Case: VODAFONE ESSAR LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA
 
Citation: 2011 (270) E.L.T. 492 (Bom.)
 
Issue:- Whether IILDO (Indian International Long Distance Operator) is entitled to SFIS (Served from India Scheme) benefit where an Indian subscriber has received an international incoming call from overseas?
  
Whether IAP (Indian Access Provider) is entitled to SFIS (Served from India Scheme) benefit where an overseas call is either maid to a foreign overseas destination or received from an overseas destination by a foreign subscriber who is on a roaming facility in India? 
 
Brief Facts:- Petitioners are corporate entities and provide services either as Indian Access Providers (lAP) or as International Long Distance Operators (ILDO) in the Telecommunications sector. Each of the Petitioners had foreign exchange earnings from rendering of Tele­communication services. Consequent to this, they applied for Duty Credit scrips under the SFIS. The First Petitioner and the Third Petitioner re­ceived their Duty Credit scrips for financial years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 from the Zonal Joint Director of Foreign Trade. The Second Petitioner received its entitlement for financial year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 from the Joint Direc­tor General of Foreign Trade. The applications of the Fourth Petitioner was pending consideration.
 
DGFT issued Circular dated 01.01.2008 which sought to restrict the eligibility for SFIS entitlements in respect of services which did not originate from India. The circular clarified that services which did not originate from India would not be entitled to SFIS bene­fits. According to the circular, paragraph 9.53 of the FTP clearly stipulated that the supply of a service from India was a condition precedent to the availment of benefits under the scheme. The circular further stated that payments which were made by a service provider in India to a Foreign Service provider who has pro­vided some part of the service in a foreign country could not be counted as ser­vice originating from India and hence would not be eligible for benefits under the scheme. For instance, telecom service providers earn foreign exchange for providing services that include services not originating from India, such as global roaming charges. Such receipts of foreign exchange, it was stated, would not be eligible for SFIS. The foreign exchange earned was clarified to mean 're­ceivables' minus 'payables' in a particular year for Telecommunication service.
 
Petitioners filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court challenging the Circular dated 1st January 2008 to the extent that it impacted upon Telecommunication service providers. Peti­tion was disposed of by the High Court on 12th August 2009 on a statement by the Petitioners that the grievance of the Petitioners would be met if the Policy Interpretation Committee (PIC) of the DGFT would consider the Pe­titioners' representation and clarify the position in the matter.
 
The PIC considered various situations involving the provision of services in the telecom sector and clarified the entitle­ment to SFIS benefits in each of those situations. Following the meeting of PIC, the DGFT issued Circular dated 15 July 2010 which mandated that all Regional Authorities to review of the previously sanctioned telecom sector SFIS cases according to the Policy circular and the minutes of PIC meeting. It was also mandated that all SFIS cases shall be re-opened in order to re-compute the entitlement in each case in terms of the decision taken on 05.07.2010. RAs were directed to recover and adjudicate the cases wherein a service provider had not provided the required information.
 
Pursuant to Circular dated 15.07.2010, notices were issued to the Petitioners for revoking the benefit granted to the Petitioners.
 
Petitioners filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court challenging the Circular dated 15.07.2010 to the extent it mandates reopening of existing cases and making of recoveries in relation to three of the situations which are contemplated in the minutes of the PIC meeting dated 05.07.2010.
 
The minutes of the PIC meeting of 5 July 2010 contemplate amongst the situations envisaged, the following three situations; (i) An Indian subscriber receives an international incoming call from overseas; (ii) A subscriber of a For­eign Access Provider who is "roaming" in India makes an international outgoing call to an overseas destination while in India; (iii) A subscriber of a Foreign Ac­cess Provider who is on a roaming facility while in India receives an international incoming call from an overseas destination. These situations are dealt with at serial Nos. 1, 2(a) and 2(b) of the minutes of the PIC meeting. The first case is one where an Indian subscriber has received a call in India from overseas, while the Second and Third involved a foreign subscriber who either makes or receives a call while in India to and from an overseas destination.
 
The minutes of the PIC meeting dated 5 July 2010 deal with whether SFIS benefits would be available in each of the three situations to which a reference has been made earlier. In the first situation, where an Indian sub-scriber has received an international incoming call from overseas, the minutes provide, that the Indian Service Provider, namely IILDO, who earns foreign ex-change for such a call is not covered by paragraph 9.53 of the FTP and the foreign exchange earnings are not entitled to SFIS benefits. In the second and the third eventualities where an overseas call is either made to a foreign overseas destina­tion or received from an overseas destination by a foreign subscriber who is on a roaming facility in India, the minutes of 5 July 2010 stipulate that while the IAP would be entitled to SFIS benefits in respect of the foreign exchange earnings the Committee has decided that only fifty percent of the foreign exchange earned would be entitled to the benefit of the scheme.
 
Petitioner’s Contention:- Submission of Petitioners is that the Foreign Trade Policy has been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers dele­gated to it by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. A policy circular would be ultra-vires and unlawful where it purports to amend the terms of the policy. According to the Petitioners, in each of the three situations, namely those at serial nos. 1, 2(a) and 2(b) of the circular, the Indian Service Provider is entitled to receive the benefit of SFIS upon the plain terms of the policy. The denial of benefits in the first situation and the restriction of bene­fits to the extent of fifty percent in the second and the third situations is, it is submitted, an attempt to a breach or modify the terms of the policy.
 
Petitioner submits that, in a situation where the foreign subscriber makes an outgoing call to an overseas destination while roaming in India, the IAP earns foreign exchange. The IAP in turn would make a payment in Indian ropers to the IILDO and the IILDO, in turn, would make a certain payment in foreign exchange to the FILDO. The benefit OF SFlS is claimed by the IAP Similarly, where a foreign subscriber roaming in India receives a call from an overseas destination, the IILDO receives payment in for­eign exchange from the FILDO and would make a payment in Indian rupees to the IAP The IILDO would make a claim for the SFlS benefits in respect of the for­eign exchange earned.
 
Respondent’s Contention:- Respondent submitted that object of SFIS was to create a powerful and unique ‘Served From India’ brand, instantly recognized and respected world over. The minutes of the PIC dated 5 July 2010 constitute no more than a clarification of what is implicit in the Foreign Trade Policy and would, therefore, amount to a lawful exercise of power.
 
It was submitted that (i) mere earning of foreign exchange is not enough and (ii) the services must originate in and be from India. On the basis of SFIS scheme in FTP, it was submitted that since the whole object of the scheme is to enhance the growth of export of service from India and to create a unique brand identity for services which originate in India.
 
In first situation, foreign exchange is admittedly earned by the IILDU (Indian International Long Distance Operator), the services are not rendered to any service consumer of another country. The submission is that the flow of service has to be from India to a foreign country and where an overseas call is made by a person stationed abroad to an Indian subscriber, the IILDO does not provide any service to the foreign subscriber.
 
In second situation, a call which is made from India by a foreign subscriber to foreign destination cannot be put through without the inter-position of the FILDO. While it is true that the IILDO or, as the case may, the IAP earns foreign exchange for the call which is true maid or received by a foreign subscriber while in India a payment is made to the FILDO.
 
The principle of netting off must be applied because the benefits under the SFlS must be confined to the net foreign exchange that is earned by the country.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The High Court spelled the link through which the call between a caller or receiver in India is established with the receiver or caller as the case may be overseas. The earning in foreign exchange by the Indian service providers forms the basis of the claim for SFIS benefits. 
 
It was noted that minutes of PIC meeting dated 05.07.2010 deal with whether SFIS benefits would be available in each of the three situations: - (1) where an Indian subscriber has received an international incoming call from overseas, the minutes provided that the Indian Service Provider, namely IILDO, who earns foreign exchange for such a call is not covered by paragraph 9.53 of the FTP and the foreign exchange earnings are not entitled to SFIS benefits. (2) In the second and third situations where an overseas call is either made to a foreign overseas destination or overseas call is either made to a foreign overseas destination or received from an overseas destination by a foreign subscriber who is on a roaming facility in India, the minutes of 05.07.2010 stipulate that while the IAP would be entitled to SFIS benefits in respect of the foreign exchange earnings the Committee has decided that only 50% of foreign exchange earned would be entitled to the benefit of the scheme.
 
The High Court noted that expression “Service Provider” defined in Paragraph 9.53 of FTP contemplates within its purview four situations which are as follows:
 
- Supply of a 'service' from India to any other country;
- Supply of a 'service' from India to service consumer of any other country in India; and
- Supply of a 'service' from India through commercial or physical pres­ence in territory of any other country
- Supply of a 'service' in India relating to exports paid in free foreign exchange or in Indian Rupees which are otherwise considered as hav­ing being paid for in free foreign exchange by RBI."
 
It was noted that while the first 3 situations speak of a supply of a service from India through commercial or physical presence, in the fourth situation, the supply of services in India relates to exports paid in free foreign exchange or in Indian rupees which are otherwise considered as having ben paid for in free foreign exchange by RBI.
 
It was noted that the conditions of eligibility for availing of benefits under the scheme are spelt out in paragraph 3.6.4.2. In order to meet the conditions of eligibility, the applicant must firstly be a service provider within the meaning of that expression in clause 9.53. Secondly, the applicant must have provided services listed in Appendix-10 of the Procedures. Thirdly, the appli­cant must have a total free foreign exchange earning of at least Rs. 10, 00, 000/- in the preceding financial year (Rs. 500000/- for individual service providers.) While defining the eligibility of a service provider the third condition stipulated that there should be a total free foreign exchange earning of the stipulated value. In so far as the entitlement of an eligible service provider is concerned, paragraph 3.6.4.3 provides that all service providers shall be entitled to Duty Credit scrips equivalent to ten per cent of free foreign exchange earned during the preceding financial year. The meaning and content of the expression "total tree foreign ex-change earned" in paragraph 3.6.4.2 which defines eligibility cannot be any different from the meaning of the expression "free foreign exchange earned", while defining entitlement in paragraph 3.6.4.3 of the policy. The earning of the foreign exchange provider is the amount which is received by him, in free foreign exchange in India.
 
The High Court held that for calculating the entitlement under SFIS the amount earned cannot be held to be referring to net amount earned. The reasons given were that the amount earned cannot be different while defining entitlement and for determining eligibility. The amount earned can only mean the same thing, while applying eligibility. For both the situations i.e. for applying conditions of eligibility and for defining the extent of entitlement, the amount earned can only mean the same thing. The second reason given was that where the FTP postulates that a net foreign exchange earning should be computed, express provisions to that effect have been made by the Policy. It was held that the FTP has not used the expression ‘net foreign exchange earning’ either while defining the conditions of eligibility or the conditions of entitlement for the SFIS. Where the same policy document employs two distinct phrases, each of those phrases must be given a separate meaning according to its plain and natural interpretation. For the purposes of defining eligibility and entitlement under SFIS, the words used are “total free foreign exchange earning” and “free foreign exchange earned”.  
 
It was observed that intention of the Government was to confine the extent of entitlement under SFIS to 10% of free foreign exchange. If intention was otherwise, they would have expressly provided so and any interpretation contrary to this interpretation would amount to amendment, modification or change of the policy.
 
It was noted that the impugned circular which was issued in July, 2010 required that all existing cases of grant of SFIS be reopened with reference to a decision taken by the Policy Interpretation Committee.
 
In the first situation, the IILDO provides a service to FILDO as part of the chain through which an international call maid by a person overseas to a subscriber in India is completed. Clause 9.53 (i) bring within the definition of expression “Service Provider” the supply of service from India to any other country. The service provided by the IILDO to the FILDO is indeed a supply of service from India to any other country for which the IILDO receives payment in free foreign exchange. That payment would entitle the IILDO to the grant of SFIS benefits.  
 
It was held that the second and third situations involve the presence within India of a foreign subscriber who is on a roaming facility while in India. In the second situation, the foreign subscriber makes an outgoing call overseas to an overseas destination, while the third situation, she receives a call from an overseas destination. The minutes of PIC acknowledge that this would meet the definition of the expression “service provider”. Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 9.53 brings within that definition supply of a service in India to a service consumer of any other country in India. The foreign subscriber is a consumer of ‘any other country’ who is physically present in India and utilizes a roaming facility while in India. A supply of service to such a person falls within the definition of the expression “service provider” in clause 9.53 (ii). However, the minutes of PIC meeting seek to restrict the grant of SFIS benefits only to the extent of 50% of the foreign exchange that is earned.
 
It was held that the acceptance of submission of Revenue would amount to substantial modification of and amendment of policy. It was held that the document must be interpreted as it stands. The FTP has defined both the eligibility and the entitlement with reference to foreign exchange earned. The foreign exchange earned cannot be defined as the remittance of foreign exchange earned. The foreign exchange earned cannot be defined as the remittance of foreign exchange less an outflow. Where the policy intended that the concept of the net foreign exchange should be ap­plied it has stipulated so expressly. In the absence thereof it was wholly impermissible for the DGFT, by means of a policy circular, to direct the implementa­tion of what constitutes clearly an amendment of the policy.
 
Accordingly, it was held that the Circular dated 15.07.2010 so far as it directs the implementation of the decision taken in the meeting of PIC dated 05.07.2010 is ultra vires the FTP, 2004-09. It is also clarified that the present case is confined only to the decisions taken at serial no. 1, 2(a) and 2(b) of PIC meeting on 05.07.201. Consequently, the direction in Circular dated 15.07.2010 to reopen the SFIS cases is quashed ad set aside.
 
Decision:- Rule made absolute.

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com