Supreme
Court stays High Court order, Mauritius Treaty Circular revived
The
Supreme Court of India granted a stay on the Delhi High Court order
(Order) dated May 31, 2002. This Order had quashed circular
789 of 2000 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). In the Order the Delhi High Court had obiter stated
that Mauritius was being abused by third country residents by setting up
post-box companies in Mauritius in order to qualify for the beneficial
provisions under the India-Mauritius tax treaty.
The
Circular had clarified that wherever
a Certificate of Residence is issued by the Mauritian Authorities, such
Certificate will constitute sufficient evidence for accepting the status of
residence as well as beneficial ownership for applying the DTAC accordingly.
This
circular merely reiterated the provisions of the Double Tax Avoidance Treaty
between India and Mauritius, which states that where a Mauritius person is
found liable to tax in India, the determination of residence of such a person
shall be made according to the laws of Mauritius. By quashing the Circular, the
Order had raised uncertainty amongst foreign investors regarding their tax
liability in relation to their investments in India.
Earlier,
in the last week of September 2002, the Government of India and the CBDT, being
respondents in the proceedings before the Delhi High Court, had jointly
filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the apex court,
challenging the Order. An independent SLP was also filed by Global Business
Institute Ltd. (GBI) a company incorporated under the laws of
Mauritius, comprising of international investors, asset managers, management
companies, banks, custodians, lawyers, accountants industry/professional
associations
and practitioners in the financial services sector.
Amongst
other grounds, both SLPs challenge the power of the Indian income tax
authorities to question residency of a Mauritius entity since determination of
such residency is the sovereign right of the Mauritius government.
The
SLPs filed by the Government of India and GBI were heard together on November
18, 2002. Although GBI was not a party before the Delhi High Court, the Supreme
Court has allowed it to make the petition against the Order. The next hearing
would be after a period of eight weeks. The Court has directed the respondents,
Azadi Bachao Andolan and Shiva Kant Jha to file their replies within three
weeks.
As a consequence of the stay of the Order, the circular shall remain in force till further orders are passed by the Supreme Court.