VODAFONE IDEA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD WHICH MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LTD AND NOW KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LTD),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-78(1), NEW DELHI

The ld. AR, on the contrary, has relied the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. in ITA 1417/2018, dated 30.05.2022 to submit that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court judgement in CIT, TDS, Bangalore vs. Vodafone South Ltd. (2014) 72 taxman.com 347 (Kar), which has decided the issue in favour of the service providers has been followed in the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Tata Teleservices Ltd. (supra). Appreciating the order of the CIT(A), it comes up that following the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court judgement in assessee’s own case, CIT(A) has allowed the ground and no contrary decision is cited by the Revenue and, at the same time, the judgement 3 dated 30.05.2022 in the case of Tata Teleservices Ltd. (supra) of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court squarely covers the issue. Thus, there is no substance in the appeal of the Revenue.

In regard to the appeal of the assessee, the ld. AR has pointed out that the issue is now squarely stands covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 57 & Anr. (2024) 160 taxmann.com 12 (SC). The ld. DR could not controvert the same with anything to distinguish on fact or otherwise in law.

As per the agreement, the franchisee/distributor is appointed for marketing of prepaid services and for appointing the retailer or outlets for sale promotion. It is pertinent to note that the retailers or outlets for sale promotion are appointed by the franchisee/ distributor and not the assessee. The franchisees/distributors have agreed not to undertake activities mentioned in the agreement for any other competitive cellular mobile telephone service provider in the business. The franchisees/distributors have to comply with statutory, regulatory and municipal permissions while conducting the business. The franchisees/distributors have agreed to indemnify and keep indemnified the assessee against any and all costs, expenses and charges imposed on the assessee because of any action by a statutory, regulatory or municipal authority due to non-compliance by the franchisee/distributor. The franchisee/ distributor has to maintain a suitable establishment for the 11 conduct of business and performance of obligations. While doing so, the franchisee/distributor shall conform and adhere to the policies communicated to it from time to time by the assessee. The franchisee/distributor shall employ adequate employees for performing its obligations, and all contractual and statutory payments, including wages, are to be paid by the franchisee/distributor. The assessee can, if it so desires, call upon the franchisee/distributor to make alterations, modifications in furniture, air conditioning equipment etc., as required and necessary and mutually agreed. Costs of such alternations and distributions are to be borne by the franchisee/distributor.

The franchisee/distributor has to maintain proper and sufficient quantities of prepaid start-up packs and recharge coupons to meet the market requirements. The franchisee/distributor shall follow the guidelines and directions issued by the assessee from time to time. At no point of time, the right, title, or interest in the prepaid cards shall pass on to the franchisee/distributor. All rights, title ownership and property rights in the cards shall rest with the assessee. The franchisee/distributor shall be solely responsible and liable for safety and storage of prepaid start-up kits, recharge cards and other material. The assessee will not be liable for any loss, pilferage or damage to the pre-paid coupons/starter-kits. The franchisee/ distributor is to indemnify the assessee for any loss caused on this account. The franchisee/distributor is to insure the prepaid start-up kits/ recharge coupons. The liability for any loss or damage due to fire, burglary, theft etc. is that of the franchisee/distributor.

On termination of the agreement, the franchisee/distributor shall continue its operation till the effective date of termination mentioned in the notice. Upon termination, the franchisee/distributor is required to return all advertising and promotional material, etc. to the assessee by the effective date of termination. Further, the assessee is not liable to the franchisee/distributor or any other party for any loss of profits or compensation or prospective profits or on account of any expenditure, etc. in the event of termination.

The assessee is to review the minimum subscriptions/targets for prepaid services taking into account market development and potential and other relevant factors. The franchisee/distributor is to employ a fully trained service staff, who have undergone training in accordance to the standards set out by the assessee. The franchisee/distributor will be responsible to collect all necessary agreement/contract forms and other related forms, after obtaining signatures of the customers on the said forms. These forms, duly completed in all respects and signed by the customers, will be forwarded to the assessee for its verification and record.

The franchisee’s/distributor’s price and payment for services will be specified by the assessee from time to time. The rates can be varied during the terms of the agreement at the discretion of the assessee and such variation is to be intimated to the franchisee/distributor. All tax liabilities in connection with, or arising out of, the transactions pertaining to the agreement shall be the responsibility of the franchisee/distributor.

The trademarks, logos, trade names or identifying marks and slogans used by the assessee, whether registered or not, are exclusive property of the assessee or the affiliated companies. The use of such marks, logos etc. will be in accordance with the guidelines issued by the assessee. As long as the agreement is in force, but not thereafter, the franchisee/distributor shall identify itself as an authorised franchisee, but shall not use trademarks, logos, tradenames, as part of its proprietorship name/corporate/ partnership name or otherwise. The franchisee/distributor is entitled to use its logo on the side door at its outlets and on its memos and official business documents towards the services effected from the outlet. 28. On the question of actual business financial model adopted and followed, it is an admitted position that the franchisees/distributors were required to pay in advance the price of the welcome kit containing the SIM card, recharge vouchers, top-up cards, e-tops, etc. The abovementioned price was a discounted one. Such discounts were given on the price printed on the pack of the prepaid service products. The franchisee/distributor paid the discounted price regardless of, and even before, the prepaid products being sold and transferred to the retailers or the actual consumer. The franchisee/distributor was free to sell the prepaid products at any price below the price printed on the pack. The franchisee/distributor determined his profits/income. 29. The Revenue has highlighted that the prepaid SIM cards were not the property of franchisee/distribution and no right, title or interest was transferred to them. These were always to remain the property of the assessee. This is correct, but it is equally true that this is a mandate and requirement of the licence issued to the assessee by the DoT. In actual practice, the right to use the SIM card and its possession is handed over and given to the end-user, that is, the customer who installs the SIM card in his phone to avail the telecommunication services. Similarly, the franchisees/distributors are to ensure that the post-paid customers/end- users fill up the form as prescribed along with the documents which are given and submitted to the assessee. These are mandates prescribed by the licence issued by the DoT to the assessees. The contractual obligations of the distributors/franchisees, do not reflect a fiduciary character of the relationship, or the business being done on the principal’s account.

The franchisees/distributors earn their income when they sell the prepaid products to the retailer or the end-user/customer. Their profit consists of the difference between the sale price received by them from the retailer/end-user/customer and the discounted price at which they have ‘acquired’ the product. Though the discounted price is fixed or negotiated between the assessee and the franchisee/distributor, the sale price received by the franchisee/ distributor is within the sole discretion of the franchisee/distributor. The assessee has no say in this matter.

It is not the case of the Revenue that the tax at source under Section 194-H of the Act is to be deducted on the difference between the printed price and the discounted price. This cannot be the case as the Revenue cannot insist that the franchisee/distributor must sell the products at the printed price and not at a figure or price below the printed price. The obligation to deduct tax at source is fixed by the statute itself, that is, on the date of actual payment by any mode, or at the time when income is credited to the account of the franchisee/distributor, whichever is earlier. In the context of the present case, the income of the franchisee/distributor, being the difference between the sale price received by the franchisee/distributor and the discounted price, is paid or credited to the account of the franchisee/distributor when he sells the prepaid product to the retailer/end- user/customer. The sale price and accordingly the income of the franchisee/distributor is determined by the franchisee/distributor and the third parties. Accordingly, the assessee does not, at any stage, either pay or credit the account of the franchisee/distributor with the income by way of commission or brokerage on which tax at source under Section 194-H of the Act is to be deducted. 32. Faced with the above situation, the Revenue has relied upon the use of the expression “payment received or receivable directly or indirectly by a person acting on behalf of the other person”, that is, ‘the principal’. It is argued that even if the franchisee/distributor receives payment in the form of income from the retailer/end-user/customer, it would require deduction of tax at source as payment received or receivable, directly or indirectly, is to be subjected to deduction of tax. In support of the argument, reliance is placed upon decision in the case of Singapore Airlines Limited (supra). 33. The decision in Singapore Airlines Limited (supra) is required to be understood in the context of the contract in the said case, which was in terms of the rules/agreement set up by the International Airport Transport Association24. IATA would fix a ceiling price, and the price an airline could charge from its customers with a discretion to the airlines to sell their tickets at a net fare lower than the base fare but not higher. The air carriers were required to furnish a fare list to the Director General of Civil Aviation. The arrangement between the airlines and travel agents was covered by the Passenger Sales Agency Agreement25, which would set out 14 the conditions under which the travel agent carried out sale of tickets along with other ancillary services. The travel agents were entitled to 7% commission on sale of the tickets for its services as the standard commission based on the price bar set by the IATA. The airlines were deducting tax at source under Section 194-H of the Act on the 7% commission. In addition to the 7% commission, the travel agents were also entitled to additional/supplementary commission on the tickets sold by them. The additional/supplementary commission and the amount at which the tickets were sold were computed by the travel agents and transmitted to the billing and settlement plan (BSP). The BSP, functioning under the aegis of the IATA, managed, inter alia, logistics vis-à-vis payments, and acted as a forum for agents and airlines to examine details pertaining to the sale of the flight tickets. 33.1 This Court examined the operation of the BSP where the financial data regarding sale of tickets was stored. The BSP agglomerated the data from multiple transactions. Thereupon, this data was transmitted either bimonthly or twice a month to the airlines. It is on the basis of this data that the airlines/air carriers were required to pay the additional commission to the travel agents. These are the striking distinguishing features in Singapore Airlines Limited (supra) case. 33.2 Having considered the aforesaid mechanism and the nature of relationship between a principal and an agent26, this Court found considerable merit in the argument of the Revenue that the airlines/ air carriers utilised the BSP to discern the amount earned as additional/supplementary commission and accordingly arrive at the income earned by the agent to deduct tax at source, in accordance with the provisions of Section 194-H of the Act. If the aforesaid mechanism is understood, then it is not difficult to appreciate and understand the conclusion arrived at by this Court in the said case. 33.3 Thus, the question whether there was relationship of principal and agent was not in dispute, but nevertheless the assessees in the said case disputed liability to deduct tax at source on the additional/supplementary commission. However, the judgment does refer to the difference between the legal relationship of master and servant, principal and agent, and between principal and principal. In this context, reference is made to the statement of law in Halsbury’s Law of England, which reads:

We have already expounded on the main provision of Section 194-H of the Act, which fixes the liability to deduct tax at source on the ‘person responsible to pay’ – an expression which is a term of art – as defined in Section 204 of the Act and the liability to deduct tax at source arises when the income is credited or paid by the person responsible for paying.28 The expression “direct or indirect” used in Explanation (i) to Section 194-H of the Act is no doubt meant to ensure that “the person responsible for paying” does not dodge the obligation to deduct tax at source, even when the payment is indirectly made by the principal-payer to the agent- payee. However, deduction of tax at source in terms of Section 194-H of the Act is not to be extended and widened in ambit to apply to true/genuine business transactions, where the assessee is not the person responsible for paying or crediting income. In the present case, the assessees neither pay nor credit any income to the person with whom he has contracted. Explanation (i) to Section 194-H of the Act, by using the word “indirectly”, does not regulate or curtail the manner in which the assessee can conduct business and enter into commercial relationships. Neither does the word “indirectly” create an obligation where the main provision does not apply. The tax legislation recognises diverse relationships and modes in which commerce and trade are conducted, albeit obligation to tax at source arises only if the conditions as mentioned in Section 194-H of the Act are met and not otherwise. This principle does not negate the compliance required by law.

Deduction of tax at source is a substantial source of the direct tax revenue. The ease of collection and recovery is obvious. Deduction and deposit of tax at source checks evasion and non-payment of tax. It expands the tax base. However, the assessee as a deductor is not paying tax on 16 his/her income, and collects and pays tax otherwise payable by the third party. Liability of the third party to pay tax when not deducted remains unaffected. Failure to deduct tax at source has serious and quasi-penal consequences for an assessee. The deduction of tax provisions should be programmatically and realistically construed, and not as enmeshes or by adopting catch-as-catch-can approach. In case of a legal or factual doubt in a given case, the assessee can rely on the doctrine of presumption against doubtful penalisation.29 Whether or not the said doctrine should be applied30, will depend on facts and circumstances of the case, including the past practice followed by the assessee and accepted by the department. When there is apparent divergence of opinion, to avoid litigation and pitfalls associated, it may be advisable for the Central Board of Direct Taxes to clarify doubts by issuing appropriate instruction/circular after ascertaining view of the assesses and stakeholders.31 In addition to enhancing revenue and ensuring tax compliance, an equally important aim/objective of the Revenue is to reduce litigation. The instructions/circular, if and when issued, should be clear, and when justified – require the obligation to be made prospective.

Notably, the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Singapore Airlines Ltd. had held that tax under Section 194-H of the Act is not required to be deducted on the discounted tickets sold by the airlines/air carriers through travel agents. Revenue did not challenge the decision of the Delhi High Court to this extent and therefore, this dictum attained finality. As noted, it is not the case of the Revenue that tax is to be deducted when payment is made by the distributors/franchisees to the mobile service providers. It is also not the case of the revenue that tax is to be deducted under Section 194-H of the Act on the difference between the maximum retail price income of the distributors/ franchisees and the price paid by the distributors/franchisees to the assessees. The assessees are not privy to the transactions between distributors/franchisees and third parties. It is, therefore, impossible for the assessees to deduct tax at source and comply with Section 194-H of the Act, on the difference between the total/sum consideration received by the istributors/ franchisees from third parties and the amount paid by the distributors/ franchisees to them.

The argument of the Revenue that assessees should periodically ask for this information/data and thereupon deduct tax at source should be rejected as far-fetched, imposing unfair obligation and inconveniencing the assesses, beyond the statutory mandate. Further, it will be willy-nilly impossible to deduct, as well as make payment of the tax deducted, within the timelines prescribed by law, as these begin when the amount is credited in the account of the payee by the payer or when payment is received by the payee, whichever is earlier. The payee receives payment when the third party makes the payment. This payment is not the payment received or payable by the assessee as the principal. The distributor/franchisee is not 17 the trustee who is to account for this payment to the assessee as the principal. The payment received is the gross income or profit earned by the distributor/franchisee. It is the income earned by distributor/ franchisee as a result of its efforts and work, and not a remuneration paid by the assessee as a cellular mobile telephone service provider.

We must, therefore, reject the argument of the Revenue relying upon the decision of this Court in Singapore Airlines Limited (supra) that assessees would be liable to deduct tax at source even if the assessees are not making payment or crediting the income to the account of the franchisee/distributor. When the obligation, and the time and manner in which the tax is mandated by law to be deducted at source, is fixed by the statute, the same cannot be shifted/altered/modified or postponed on a concession in the court by the Revenue. The concession may be granted, when permissible, by way of a circular issued in accordance with Section 119 of the Act. We do not think that the decision in Singapore Airlines Limited (supra) can be read in the manner as suggested by the Revenue.

Coming back to the legal position of a distributor, it is to be generally regarded as different form that of an agent. The distributor buys goods on his account and sells them in his territory. The profit made is the margin of difference between the purchase price and the sale price. The reason is, that the distributor in such cases is an independent contractor. Unlike an agent, he does not act as a communicator or creator of a relationship between the principal and a third party. The distributor has rights of distribution and is akin to a franchisee. Franchise agreements are normally considered as sui generis, though they have been in existence for some time. Franchise agreements provide a mechanism whereby goods and services may be distributed. In franchise agreements, the supplier or the manufacture, i.e. a franchisor, appoints an independent enterprise as a franchisee through whom the franchisor supplies certain goods or services. There is a close relationship between a franchisor and a franchisee because a franchisee’s operations are closely regulated, and this possibly is a distinction between a franchise agreement and a distributorship agreement. Franchise agreements are extremely detailed and complex. They may relate to distribution franchises, service franchises and production franchises. Notwithstanding the strict restrictions placed on the franchisees – which may require the franchisee to sell only the franchised goods, operate in a specific location, maintain premises which are required to comply with certain requirements, and even sell according to specified prices – the relationship may in a given case be that of an independent contractor. Facts of each case and the authority given by ‘principal’ to the franchisees matter and are determinative.

An independent contractor is free from control on the part of his employer, and is only subject to the terms of his contract. But an agent is 18 not completely free from control, and the relationship to the extent of tasks entrusted by the principal to the agent are fiduciary. As contract with an independent agent depends upon the terms of the contract, sometimes an independent contractor looks like an agent from the point of view of the control exercisable over him, but on an overview of the entire relationship the tests specified in clauses (a) to (d) in paragraph 8 may not be satisfied. The distinction is that independent contractors work for themselves, even when they are employed for the purpose of creating contractual relations with the third persons. An independent contractor is not required to render accounts of the business, as it belongs to him and not his employer.

Thus, the term ‘agent’ denotes a relationship that is very different from that existing between a master and his servant, or between a principal and principal, or between an employer and his independent contractor. Although servants and independent contractors are parties to relationships in which one person acts for another, and thereby possesses the capacity to involve them in liability, yet the nature of the relationship and the kind of acts in question are sufficiently different to justify the exclusion of servants and independent contractors from the law relating to agency. In other words, the term ‘agent’ should be restricted to one who has the power of affecting the legal position of his principal by the making of contracts, or the disposition of the principal’s property; viz. an independent contractor who may, incidentally, also affect the legal position of his principal in other ways. This can be ascertained by referring to and examining the indicia mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) in paragraph 8 of this judgment. It is in the restricted sense in which the term agent is used in Explanation (i) to Section 194-H of the Act.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the assessees would not be under a legal obligation to deduct tax at source on the income/profit component in the payments received by the distributors/franchisees from the third parties/customers, or while selling/transferring the pre-paid coupons or starter-kits to the distributors. Section 194-H of the Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee – cellular mobile service providers, challenging the judgments of the High Courts of Delhi and Calcutta are allowed and these judgments are set aside. The appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgments of High Courts of Rajasthan, Karnataka and Bombay are dismissed. There would be no orders as to cost. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”