Black Money and Income Tax Prosecution

“The author is an Advocate, practicing since the last 25 years and has major look outs in the courts for matters pertaining to Income Tax as well as Black Money Prosecution. Mr. H.S. Bhullar has been an expert in the cases pertaining to Money Laundering Matters and has also established himself thoroughly in the field of Economic offences and white collar crimes.”

Introduction:

Black money is a complex phenomenon; it has never been precisely defined.[1]  In fact, several terms with similar connotations have been in vogue, including “unaccounted income”, ‟black income”, “dirty money”, “black wealth”, “underground wealth”, “black economy”, “parallel economy”, “shadow economy”, and “underground” or “unofficial” economy.[2] Generation of black money and its stashing abroad in tax havens and offshore financial centres have dominated discussions and debate in public fora during the last two years. It is well known that all money stashed away would not be black. In fact some of the outside bank account holders are genuinely law abiding citizens. Tax-system is an arbitrary system created without thorough scientific studies or statistical estimations. India has one of the most complex tax systems in the world. The tax slabs and rules are all arbitrary and do not reflect realities of economy. They are a complex mix of quick fixes, poll promises, buttering certain lobbies. It is so complex and arbitrary that even the experts fail to understand nuances of income tax, service tax, VAT, etc. Paying tax is not a proven symbol of sainthood in the modern world. The world today is driven by innovation and speed. 

At the outset, the trending news that has created a hassle to the lives of various citizens at present is the disclosure of Foreign Bank Accounts under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and those who have alleged to not have disclosed these foreign accounts/income, assets and other information. Surprisingly, the information is based on sources such as the Panama Papers[3], HSBC offshore leaks[4] or other information that has been procured by the Government of India under the Exchange of Information (EOI) and the various Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA’s) between the countries. 

The abovementioned news pertaining to Panama Papers have leaked more than 2, 14,000 offshore foreign accounts and many innocent Indian citizens have been victims to the massive leak of documents. Many influential figures such as Amitabh Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, DLF owner K P Singh and nine members of his family, Sameer Gehlaut, the promoters of Apollo Tyres and Indiabulls, Gautam Adani’s elder brother Vinod Adani, two politicians – Shishir Bajoria from West Bengal and Anurag Kejriwal, the former chief of the Delhi unit of Loksatta Part[5] have been victim to these malicious prosecutions, as the Income Tax Department wishes to aggressively access all the information pertaining to foreign accounts in the BVI. This news has not only created a bizarre in the world of Income Tax Act but has caused major implications on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and various Scheduled Offences that have been listed therein. When you come to think of it, the foreign black money cannot be very large, given the low foreign trade content in our GDP all these years. The truth is that it is indeed impossible, in the very nature of things, to even make a guesstimate of the Indian money secreted in foreign bank accounts. 

To note, an Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and Government of the British Virgin Islandsfor the exchange of information relating to taxes, in the Caribbean is considered to be among the haven of all the tax reforms and the tax department has already launched more than 33 prosecutions linked to the names revealed in the Panama papers. The leak pertaining to the Panama Papers is not only targeting the original defaulters but has created a wave of threat in the minds of thousands of citizens of India as they are being subjected to unnecessary harassment.[6]Various statistics, which put Indians at the top in terms of deposits in Swiss banks, have often been quoted to global institutions and sometimes even to the Swiss National Bank, the central bank of the country. Seeking to demolish the “myth” over these figures being “circulated as gospel truth”, a top official at the Swiss Bankers’ Association told PTI from Basel that there was no truth at all in such statistics.[7]

The Income Tax Department has created a splurge of cases against many innocent citizens by filing complaints u/s 276, 277 Income Tax Act, 1961, 181/191 Indian Penal Code & 50/51 of the Black Money Act, 2015. Unnecessary prosecutions under section 276, 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 50 & 51 of the Black Money Acts and 181 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are being launched by the Department maliciously against these alleged defaulters. The documents purportedly procured by the department from the foreign authorities, such as Singapore & the British Virgin Islands are being used for launching criminal prosecutions, whereas it is an established fact that these documents cannot be used for any purpose other than for tax purposes, i.e., imposing penalty on the alleged tax payers or for quantifying the amount of tax that has been allegedly evaded by the Indian citizens.

The documents that are being purportedly received from abroad have also been imposing unnecessary threat to the alleged defaulters as the said documents are meant to be for only tax purposes, whereas the tax department only intends to launch criminal prosecution against the tax payers without giving any opportunity to explain the alleged default on the part of the Tax Payer. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Poonam Jain v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. (C) 3732/2017[8] had also observed that the person against whom a prosecution is being initiated cannot be denied a copy of the relied upon material/documents to prosecute him/her. This forms the basic crux of the principles of natural justice and the same would be applicable even if there is no express provision in the governing statute.

The principles of natural justice and due process of law have been embedded in the Act by laying down the requirement of mandatory issue of notices to the person against whom proceedings are being initiated, grant of opportunity of being heard, necessity of taking the evidence produced by him into account, recording of reasons, passing of orders in writing, limitation of time for various actions of the tax authority, etc. Further, the right of appeal has been protected by providing for appeals to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, and to the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court on substantial questions of law.  To protect persons holding foreign accounts with minor balances which may not have been reported out of oversight or ignorance, it has been provided that failure to report bank accounts with a maximum balance of upto Rs.5 lakh at any time during the year will not entail penalty or prosecution.[9]

It is also important to note that many provisions qua DTAA and OECD are being violated by the Income Tax Department since these documents that are being purportedly received from abroad are supposed to be used exclusively for tax purposes and any significance of these documents in the penalty/prosecution proceedings are to be brought to the notice of the foreign authorities supplying these documents and prior permission is ought to be taken from them before launching prosecution proceedings against the defaulters. These criminal complaints are currently being filed before the Ld. ACMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on the basis of unwarranted and baseless information. The Income Tax Department, in many cases pertaining to Black Money and Income Tax cases have successfully mislead the courts into taking cognizance of these matters by supplying information that is prima facie bad in law. 

The cases that are being construed against the citizens of India are not only based on false and baseless information but also form the crux of violation of the various provisions laid down in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Model Convention, Double Tax Avoidance Agreements (DTAA), Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEA’s), Multilateral Conventions, etc between the countries. India has DTAA treaties signed with 88 odd countries and that the IT department is issuing prosecution notices to the defaulters whilst violating the aforesaid treaties.  

Conclusion:

Based on this, it has now become imperative for the defence to raise serious objections regarding the authenticity of documents received from abroad and genuineness of the department to launch prosecution. This clearly establishes the fact that the department is taking actions based on assumptions and presumptions having no basis in reality. The DTAA treaties agreed between India and various countries such as Singapore, BVI etc have been grossly violated by the department which is a crucial subject matter that needs to be brought into the notice of the courts since the fundamental rights of the citizens of India are being affected and that the department shows no concern to harmlessly proceed against the alleged defaulters. If India has to transform, neither ‘Make in India’ will help nor ‘Black Money collection’, what may help is the ability to create wealth – more intellectual property, new products and services that sell in world, establishing business, and new innovations.


Penal Provisions in the Goods and Services (GST) Act

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, introduced on July 1st, 2017 is set to revolutionise the entire Indian tax collection structure. A lack of political will is the only one reason why India waited till so late to join an ever-burgeoning list of countries that have implemented this form of tax legislation. The fact that this legislation took 17 years to come into existence after it was proposed is a testimony to the culture of Indian politics. The GST is a comprehensive, multi-stage, destination-based tax that will be levied at every level of value-addition. This new tax structure is composed of four different legislations:

  • The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
  • The Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
  • The Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
  • The Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017

Offences and Penalties under GST

There are three broad areas that need to be covered to understand the entire mechanism of committing of offences, imposition of penalties, prosecution of the said offences and the way the offences will be compounded. These three areas are:

  • Offences and penalties under GST
  • Prosecution of offences under GST
  • Compounding of offences under GST

Offences and Penalties

Chapter XIX of the CGST Act deals with the offences and penalties under the new structure. 

Section 122 lists the offences on which penalties may be imposed by departmental authorities:

  • Supply of goods/services without issue or with issue of a false/incorrect invoice.
  • Issuing an invoice without making a supply
  • Not paying tax collected for a period exceeding three months
  • Collection of tax in contravention of the Act and failure to pay same to Government, after three months of it becoming due.
  • Failure to deduct tax in accordance with Section 51 or deduction of tax lower than required by the Act or failure to pay to the Government, the tax deducted.
  • Failure to collect tax in accordance with Section 52 or collection of amount less than what is required by the Act or failure to pay tax to the Government the tax so deducted.
  • Availing/utilising input tax credit without actual receipt of goods/services.
  • Fraudulent obtaining of any refund.
  • Taking or substituting input tax credit in contravention of the Act
  • Falsifying/substituting financial records, or producing/furnishing false documents/information, etc. with the intention to evade tax due.
  • Failure to register inspite of being eligible to do so.
  • Furnishing of false information with regards to registration.
  • Obstructs/Prevents an officer in discharge of his duties.
  • Transporting of goods without document cover.
  • Evasion of taxes by suppressing the turnover.
  • Failure to keep/maintain/retain documents in accordance with the Act.
  • Failure to furnish information/documents or furnishing false information/documents on being called for it by an officer under the Act.
  • Supplying/transporting/storing goods which can be confiscated under the Act.
  • Issuing of invoice/document using another person’s registration credentials.
  • Tampering/destroying any material evidence/documents 
  •  Disposing off/tampering with goods that have been detained/seized/attached.

Offence of aid and abetment: A penalty can be imposed on someone who aids or abets any of the 21 offences mentioned above. This is covered by Section 122 (3).

Section 123 provides for a penalty for failure to furnish information return under Section 150.

Section 124 provides for a penalty to be imposed when a person either does not furnish information/return or furnishes false information/return when required to do so under Section 151.

According to Section 125, a general penalty can be imposed for any contravention of the Act and where no penalty has been separately specified for the contravention.  

Other general rules regarding penalties:

Section 126(1) lays down that penalties cannot be imposed for minor breaches, i.e., less than five thousand rupees. It also lays down that no penalties cannot be imposed for omission or mistake in documentation which is easily rectifiable and made without any fraudulent intent.

Section 126(2) provides that the amount of penalty should depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, i.e., the penalty imposed should be commensurate with the degree and severity of the breach.

Section 126(3) calls for penalties to be not imposed without giving an opportunity of hearing.

Under Section 126(4), the tax authorities have to provide an explanation to the person on whom the penalty is being imposed.

Section 126(5) allows for imposition of a lower penalty if the offender voluntarily discloses the fact of his breach.

Section 127 provides the proper officer with the power to impose penalty for acts and omissions which are not covered by the certain sections mentioned.

Section 128 confers the Government with the power to waive off penalties, in part or full and late fees in certain circumstances.

Section 129 provides for provisions relating to detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit. This section also provides ffor penalty which shall be payable for release of such goods.

Section 130 provides for provisions relating to confiscation of goods and conveyances. This section also provides for a fine which shall be payable on the release of such goods.

Prosecution of offences 

Section 131 clarifies that confiscation made or penalty imposed under the Act would not prevent the infliction of any other punishment under the Act or any other law.

Section 132 provides for a list of offences which shall be punishable with gradation of fine and imprisonment depending on the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken. 

Punishment prescribed on conviction of any offence:

Amount of Tax Evaded (in Rs.)Punishment
Exceeding 500 lakhs 5 years, plus fine
200 lakhs – Rs. 500 lakhs3 years, plus fine
100 lakhs – Rs. 200 lakhs1 year, plus fine

This section also stipulates that a second or any subsequent conviction for an offence in this section shall be punishable with imprisonment for terms which may extend to 5 years and a fine. However, no imprisonment for any of the offences shall be for a period less than six months.

Section 133 provides for punishment and imprisonment for declaration of information by any person engaged in connection with the collection of statistics under Section 151 or any person engaged in connection with the provision of service on the common portal or the agent of the common portal.

Section 134 provides that no person shall be prosecuted for any offence without the prior sanction of the designated authority and no court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the First Class shall try such offence.

Section 135 states that the courts should presume the existence of a culpable mental state, unless proved otherwise.

Section 136 provides for relevancy of the statements made and signed by a person on appearance in response to any summons.

Section 137 provides for the person in charge to be held accountable for an offence committed by a company.  However, the same person is not liable be punished if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge.

Compounding of Offences

Section 138 provides for a detailed compounding of any offence under the Act, before or after the institution of prosecution, by the Commissioner on payment of a prescribed compounding amount.

Therefore, these offences can be Grouped as:-

Fake and Wrong Invoices

  • If any taxable person who supplies any goods/services without any invoice or issues a false invoice for example If A has not registered 
  • If issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods/services in violation of the provision of GST.
  • If issues invoices using the identification number of another bonafide taxable person.

Fraud

  • If submits false information while registering under GST.
  • If submits fake financial records/documents or files fake returns to evade tax
  • Does not provide information/gives false information during proceedings.

Tax Evasion

  • If collects any GST but does not submit it to the government within 3 months.
  • Even if collects any GST but does not submit it to the government within 3 months.
  • Obtains any information refund of any CGST/SGST by fraud.
  • Takes and /or utilises input tax credit without actual receipt of goods and/or services.
  • Deliberately suppresses his sales to evade tax.

Supply/Transport of Goods 

  • Transports goods without proper documents.
  • Supplies/transports goods which he knows will be confiscated.
  • Destroys/tampers goods which have been seized.

Others 

  • Has not registered under GST although he is required to by law.
  • Does not deduct TDS or deducts fewer amounts where applicable.
  • Does not collect TCS or collects fewer amounts where applicable.
  • Being an Input Service Distributor, he takes or distributes input tax credit in violation of the rules.
  • Obstructs the proper officer during his duty.
  • Does not maintain all the books that he required to maintain by law.
  • Destroys any evidence

Power to Arrest

Now that we have enumerated the various offences listed under the Act, it is pertinent here to discuss the circumstances in which arrests can be made under the Act.

Section 69 provides for the situations in which the Commissioner can authorise any officer of the tax authority to make arrests. The Commissioner can do so when he has reasons to believe that a person has committed any offence specified in clauses [a], [b], [c] or [d] of Section 132 (1) or clauses [i] or [ii] of Section 132(1) or Section 132(2).

Conclusion

Although the scope of this article is to inform about the penal provisions of the Goods and Services (GST) Act, it would not be without cause to also throw some light on the defects that the GST Act suffers from.

Businesses are having a very difficult time to adjust to the increase in operating costs due to the steps needed to be taken to comply with the provision of the GST. The GST Act can be expected to disrupt the business environment but that is expected to happen only in the short-term.The penal provisions have kept little regard for small taxpayers, who have a limited knowledge of tax laws and compliance. Thus, the intention to broaden the tax base is appreciated but it goes without saying that it is also the responsibility of the government to educate the masses about the new tax mechanism in place.  

Article on Waiver

Creating a history after about a peirod of 9 years, a Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that drew attention towards the concept of the waiver of the six months period as prescribed u/s 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This provision of the HMA, 1955 was discussed in detail in 2009 in the case of Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain in which the Supreme Court held that the power to convert a petition filed u/s 13 (Divorce) of the HMA, 1955 to Section 13B (Mutual Divorce) and waive off the six months period, lied with the Supreme Court of India only. Contrary views were taken by many of the other High Courts such as the Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts. Whereas after a tremendous research on this provision it was observed by the counsel of the Petitioner, Sh. H.S. Bhullar, that the High Court of Delhi had never received such a petition after 2009 and therefore seeking directions from the High Court for the waiver was as much as of a challenge as the High Court was strongly affirming the law laid down by the Apex Court in the abovementioned case. 

The Petition filed by Sh. H.S. Bhullar, counsel for the Petitioner stated various grounds and powers of the High Court as prescribed under Article 226 and further raised various contentions during the first hearing of the Petition on 8th August 2017. The major contentions of the counsel for the Petitioner in his case was mainly that- 

  1. The 6 months period as prescribed u/s 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is merely a directive provision and not a mandatory clause. 
  2. Further, the parties have put themselves through a lot of hardships and the waiting period would only cause them undue harrasment. 
  3. And finally, that the facts and circumstances mentioned in the case of Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, were very different to that in the present case. 

Affiramations were made with regard to various precedents such as Badri v. Harbai, Anjana Kishore v. Puneet Kishore and Rakesh Harsukhbhai v. State of Maharashtra, which discussed the variations prevailing in the Apex Court judgment of Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain. 

Admist these hearings, a petition for the same was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur in which the Hon’ble Division Bench consisting of Justice A.K. Goel and Justice U.U. Lalit, held on 12th September 2017 that the waiver of the waiting period in between the first motion and the second motion of the Mutual Divorce as presribed in the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would be in the discretion of the concerned court. 

The present petition was a challenge for the Hon’ble High Court as well since, the said petition was to be decided on merits and since the dual nature of the Interpretation of Statutes was also duly questioned by the counsel of the parties. It is pertinent to note that the contentions made by the counsel for the Petitioner, Sh. H.S. Bhullar in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court before Justice Midha has also been discussed in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment decided on 12th Septemeber 2017 which finally gave the power to the concerned court for the waiver of the period as prescribed u/s 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore taking the precedence of the abovementioned judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Delhi High Court, passed an order in favour of the parties on 15th September 2017 and directed the concerned family court to consider the waive off the period prescribed u/s 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.