Tax Liability and Standby Letters of Credit: Supreme Court’s Verdict in Formula One Tax Case

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC vs. Axis Bank Limited & Ors., addressed a complex financial dispute concerning tax liability, international banking transactions, and the enforcement of Standby Letters of Credit (LCs). The case arose from a contractual arrangement between Formula One World Championship Limited (FOWC), Jaypee Sports International Limited (Jaypee), and financial institutions, including Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Lloyds Bank, and Axis Bank. The primary legal question was whether the Indian Income Tax Department could attach payments made under LCs to secure FOWC’s tax liability in India.

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision, affirming that FOWC had a tax liability in India and directing it to deposit the disputed amount. The judgment clarifies the interplay between international financial obligations, Indian tax laws, and contractual commitments under Letters of Credit.

Background of the Case

The dispute stemmed from a contractual arrangement wherein Jaypee was granted rights by FOWC to host and promote Formula One Grand Prix races in India. To ensure payment to FOWC, Jaypee arranged for four Standby Letters of Credit issued by Axis Bank and confirmed by RBS and Lloyds Bank for a total of USD 51.35 million.

The issue arose when the Indian Income Tax Department, suspecting that payments made to FOWC were subject to taxation in India, passed an order under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provisionally attaching these payments. The department contended that the income generated by FOWC in India was taxable as business income due to its Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The appellants, including RBS, Lloyds Bank, and Axis Bank, presented the following arguments:

• The Standby Letters of Credit were independent financial obligations, separate from the underlying tax dispute.
• Once the LCs were invoked, the confirming banks (RBS and Lloyds Bank) were bound to make payments to FOWC, and Axis Bank was obligated to reimburse them.
• The attachment order issued by the Income Tax Department unlawfully interfered with international banking commitments.
• The enforcement of the LCs should not be subject to Indian tax liabilities, as they were governed by English law and had exclusive jurisdiction clauses favoring English courts.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents, including the Indian Income Tax Department and FOWC, countered with the following arguments:

• The Delhi High Court had already ruled that FOWC had a Permanent Establishment in India and was liable to pay tax.
• FOWC attempted to evade tax liability by prematurely invoking the LCs and receiving payments from RBS and Lloyds Bank.
• The attachment orders under Section 281B were legally justified to secure tax revenue.
• Since the payments were for a contract executed in India and the income was sourced in India, they were subject to Indian tax laws.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, examined the legal issues and made the following key observations:

“The effect of the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which has been upheld by this Court, is that FOWC has a tax liability in India. The Income Tax Department was justified in securing its revenue through attachment orders.”

The Court emphasized that the principle of ‘independent contract in LCs’ cannot override the need to comply with tax laws:

“Though the banks are bound by financial commitments under LCs, they cannot be allowed to override legitimate tax recovery measures undertaken by the authorities.”

Addressing FOWC’s actions in invoking the LCs, the Court noted:

“FOWC, despite knowing about the attachment order, went ahead and invoked the LCs to receive payments from the confirming banks. This act was a deliberate attempt to circumvent Indian tax laws.”

Legal Principles Affirmed

The ruling reaffirmed several key legal principles:

• Tax Liability on Business Income: Income generated from business activities in India, including royalties, is taxable if a Permanent Establishment exists.
• Attachment of International Transactions: Indian tax authorities can lawfully attach payments under LCs if they relate to tax-evading transactions.
• Standby LCs and Tax Compliance: Banks issuing and confirming LCs must comply with local tax laws, even if the underlying transaction is governed by foreign laws.
• Fair Enforcement of Tax Laws: Attempts to bypass tax liabilities through premature invocation of financial instruments will be scrutinized by courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Income Tax Department, upholding the attachment orders and directing FOWC to deposit USD 15.45 million with the Bombay High Court. This ensured that the tax liability was secured while allowing the confirming banks to recover their dues from Axis Bank.

This judgment reinforces the Indian tax authorities’ power to enforce tax compliance even in cross-border financial transactions. It also serves as a crucial precedent for cases involving the intersection of international banking, contract law, and taxation.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The Royal Bank of Sc vs Axis Bank Limited & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-08-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Banking Regulations
See all petitions in Tax Evasion Cases
See all petitions in Income Tax Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Taxation and Financial Cases Category