The order further said Vodafone
was entitled to fair and equitable treatment in respect of its investment in mobile telecommunication in India in line with the bilateral investment treaty (BIT).
Any failure to comply with this by India will engage with its international responsibility, it said.
The panel also asked India to pay £4.32 million as 60 per cent cost that Vodafone
bore for legal representation and 3,000 euros as 50 per cent fee the company paid the appointing authority.
The Income Tax Department
had demanded Rs 7,990 crore in capital gains taxes in 2007, and it rose to Rs 22,100 crore after including interest and penalty by 2016.
The company said in a statement: “Vodafone confirms that the investment treaty tribunal found (the case) in Vodafone’s favour. This was a unanimous decision, including India’s appointed arbitrator Mr Rodrigo Oreamuno. The tribunal held that any attempt by India to enforce the tax demand would be a violation of India’s international law obligations.”
The finance ministry said in a statement the government would study the award.
A senior official, however, said, “Implementation of foreign tribunal award decisions is governed by the Indian Arbitration Act, and the government is not obliged to accept the award.”
Finance ministry sources said the government had defended its position in the arbitration panel, saying it had sovereign right to tax capital gains on the transfer of assets located in India and was well within its right to take all measures to stop avoidance of taxes through indirect transfers via tax havens.
They said Parliament rightly clarified its intent through an amendment in the Income-Tax Act and therefore such measures could not be opposed by simply labelling it as a retrospective amendment. The question is, should the government have allowed such loopholes to continue, asked the sources. The answer is obviously no. "It (the government) is duty-bound to take all steps to protect public money and exchequer, and if there is any attempt to avoid the taxes by routing the transaction through a tax haven like Cayman Island, it was entitled to take all measures, including amendments to law, to stop such abuse," said a source.
Vodafone has not paid the department anything and hence the question of refund does not arise. But write-off is also ruled out and tax demand raised against the telecom major will remain, an official said. Together with the cost imposed on India by arbitration, this will be around Rs 85 crore only, the official said.
Sources said the government might have to refund Rs 45 crore only if it does not go for appeal against the award.
Anuradha Dutt, founder and senior partner at DMD Advocates, who represented Vodafone in arbitration, said: “Vodafone has got justice, first from the Supreme Court and now from an international arbitral tribunal.”
Akhilesh Ranjan, former member of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, said: “The decision raises questions on whether the government can accept the ruling and not enforce a tax demand raised under a law passed by Parliament. The government might seek a review of the ruling, but ultimately may have to decide whether and how to implement it. This issue of implementation may continue to be contested in courts under the Indian Arbitration Act.”
Rajesh Simhan, leader and head of the tax practice at Nishith Desai Associates, said, "The Vodafone order could benefit Vedanta and Cairn, which have initiated arbitration proceedings against the government's retrospective tax demands."
Amit Maheshwari, tax partner at AKM Global, said that for cases already going on, even though the Vodafone order might not be binding, in all probability this retrospective amendment would be seen as unfair.
Rakesh Nangia, chairman of Nangia Andersen India, said Vodafone had successfully relied on the fair and equitable treatment standard in BIT.
"It is time for the Government of India to review the legacy 2012 retrospective tax law, and ensure new beginnings, with tax certainty to become the order of the day," said Advocate Fereshte Sethna, founding & managing partner at DMD Advocates, who represented Vodafone in the matter.
Though the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Vodafone in 2012, saying that the department had “no jurisdiction” to levy tax on overseas transactions between companies
incorporated outside India, the government, run by the United Progressive Alliance, passed an amendment to the Income Tax Act, giving it retrospective effect to bring deals done overseas within the tax net.
Vodafone had deposited Rs 2,500 crore with the Supreme Court and given a bank guarantee of Rs 8,500 crore in 2012. The deposit was refunded and bank guarantee discharged after it won the case at the Supreme Court.
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.