SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Bom) 380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dr. B.P. Saraf and M.L. Dudhat, JJ.
Bombay Goods Transport Association and another .... Petitioners.
Versus
Central Board of Direct Taxes and others .... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1277 of 1994, decided on 28/29-7-1994.
Advocates appeared :
C.U. Singh with Ms. Shobha i/b Haresh Mehta Co., for the petitioners.
G.S. Jetly with P.S. Jetly and J.P. Deodhar, for the respondents.

Section 194-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable to contracts for mere carriage of goods which do not include any other services like loading or unloading and are not in anyway connected with any "work" to be performed by the carrier.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Section 194-C - Applicability - Transport contracts - Whether payments made to transport contractors for carriage of goods fall within the purview of section 194-C - Held, No - Section 194-C applies only to "work contracts" and "labour contracts" and not to "transport contracts" - Circular of CBDT No. 681 dated 8th March, 1994, which seeks to extend section 194-C to payments made on account of transportation charges, is illegal and without jurisdiction.

Fact of the Case:

The Bombay Goods Transport Association and its Honorary General Secretary filed a writ petition challenging the applicability of section 194-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to contracts for mere carriage of goods which do not include any other services like loading or unloading and are not in anyway connected with any "work" to be performed by the carrier.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that section 194-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable to contracts for mere carriage of goods which do not include any other services like loading or unloading and are not in anyway connected with any "work" to be performed by the carrier. The court further held that the Circular of CBDT No. 681 dated 8th March, 1994, which seeks to extend section 194-C to payments made on account of transportation charges, is illegal and without jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether section 194-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applicable to contracts for mere carriage of goods which do not include any other services like loading or unloading and are not in anyway connected with any "work" to be performed by the carrier.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the expression "any work" used in section 194-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to mean "works contracts" and "contracts for work" i.e. "labour contracts" but not service contracts or "transport contracts". The court also relied on the fact that the legislature had proposed to insert section 194-E in the Act in the year 1987 and inserted section 194-H in the year 1991, which further showed that according to the legislature section 194-C was not applicable to "service contracts" or "contracts" brought within the purview of deduction of tax at source by section 194-H of the Act.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed and the rule was made absolute in the above terms. There was no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT - Dr.B.P. SARAF, J.:---This writ petition filed by the Bombay Goods Transport Association and its Honorary General Secretary raises an important question as to whether a contract for mere carriage of goods which does not include any other services like loading or unloading and is not in anyway connected with any "work" to be performed by the carrier can be said to be a contract for carrying out any work within the meaning of section 194-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Though section 194-C is in the statute book right from 1st April, 1972 there was no controversy about the fact that payments made to transport contractors do not fall within the purview of the said section. The controversy has arisen recently with the issuance of circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT") being Circular No. 681 of 8th March, 1994. The uncontroverted position is that prior to the issuance of the above circular there were circulars and clarifications from the CBDT to the effect that section 194-C was not applicable to payments made for carriage of goods to the transport operators.

2. For a proper appreciation of the controversy, it may be expedient to set out some of the provisions of the Act, the relevant circulars and guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes from time to time after coming into force of section 194-C and during the last two decades of its operation. Section 194-C of the Act provides for deduction of tax at source from payments to contractors and sub-contractors. The said section, as far as relevant, reads as follows :

Section 194-C. "Payments to contractors and sub-contractors.

(1) Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and---

(a) the Central Government or any State Government; or

(b) any local authority; or

(c) any corporation established by or under a Central, State or Provincial Act; or

(d) any company; or

(e) any co-operative society,

shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the contractor or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to two per cent of such sum as income-tax on income comprised therein.

(2) Any person (being a contractor and not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family) responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the sub-contractor) in pursuance of a contract with the sub-contractor for carrying out, or for the supply of labour for carrying out, the whole or any part of the work undertaken by the contractor or for supplying whether wholly or partly any labour which the contractor has undertaken to supply shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the sub-contractor or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by an amount equal to one per cent of such sum as income-tax on income comprised therein.

(3) No deduction shall be made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) from---

(i) any sum credited or paid in pursuance of any contract the consideration for which does not exceed ten thousand rupees; or

(ii) any sum credited or paid before the 1st day of June, 1972; or

(iii) any sum credited or paid before the 1st day of June, 1973, its pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a co-operative society or in pursuance of a contract between such contractor and the sub-contractor in relation to any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) undertaken by the contractor for the co-opearative society.

....."

Soon after the enactment of the above section 194-C, a circular was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India being Circular No. 86 dated 29th May, 1972 to explain the broad effect of the provision. In this circular it was clearly stated that deduction of income-ta








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top