India: Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on Indo-Mauritius Treaty Out
Last Updated: 15 October 2003

Summary of events

On 8th October, 2003 the Supreme Court of India released a landmark judgment (dated 7th October 2003) which will have international repercussions on the financial markets. Legal experts in the field the world over were awaiting the judgment not merely because of the newly acquired importance of India as a fund destination (and the consequent tax benefits and certainty which would flow from a favorable order) but because several countries are facing similar issues about tax treaties. This judgment is expected to be cited in courts the world over for the interpretation of double tax treaties.

A Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of the circular in public interest. The Delhi High Court struck down the circular on various grounds. The court also found that the treaty gave rise to tax evasion and encouraged the existence of Mauritius as a tax haven and passed adverse comments about the treaty itself. The High Court order was challenged by a consortium of Mauritius based companies called the Global Business Institute (represented by the law firm P.H. Parekh & Co., before the Supreme Court of India) and also by the Government of India (represented by the Attorney General of India). After extensive arguments, the Supreme Court passed a judgment upholding the circular and reversing the findings of the Delhi High Court on all counts. The order brings the much needed certainty back into investments coming from Mauritius which had gone down from 35% of inflows over the past decade to only 5% of inflows over the past 6 months.


The past decade has seen substantial investments into India via Mauritius because of a favorable tax treaty with the country. In early 2000 some tax officers started questioning some foreign financial institutions to prove their residence of Mauritius. This preliminary investigation resulted in a huge uncertainty for foreign investors and funds which approached the finance ministry. The government therefore, to quell uncertainty and a cataclysmic outflow of funds, issued a circular (No. 789 of 2000) on 13th April 2000 clarifying that a certificate of residence issued by the Mauritius authorities should be taken as sufficient evidence of residence of Mauritius. The circular 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 was issued pursuant to the Double Tax Avoidance Convention between India and Mauritius which states that the determination of residence of a ‘person’ of Mauritius shall be made according to the laws of Mauritius where such person is liable to tax.

People’s Union for Civil Liberties (an NGO) and a retired income tax officer, Mr. Jha, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT"). By an order dated 31st May 2002 the Delhi High Court quashed circular 789 of 2000 and held that the circular was ultra vires Section 90 of the Income Tax Act which allowed treaties only for the purpose of avoiding double tax not for encouraging trade and investments (as was provided in the Preamble of the Treaty). It was further held that since Mauritius charged no capital gains tax there was no question of ‘double’ taxation. It was also held that the circular took away the discretion of the income tax officer in determining the residence of a person and that right granted by statute could not be taken away by a mere circular. The High Court even decided what was not part of the arguments and stated that "Treaty shopping which amounts to abuse of the Indo Mauritius Bilateral treaty, may amount to fraudulent practice and cannot be encouraged." The High Court order thus raised uncertainty amongst foreign investors regarding their tax liability in relation to their investments in India.

On 4th October 2002, the Global Business Institute Ltd. ("GBI"), filed a Special Leave to Petition ("SLP") before the Supreme Court of India through M/s P.H. Parekh & Co., appealing against the Delhi High Court order. GBI, is 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. Although GBI was not a party before the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court allowed it to make the petition against the order since it was a person aggrieved by the order. The Government of India and the CBDT being the respondents in the proceedings before the Delhi High Court had also filed a similar appeal before the apex court.

The SLPs filed by GBI and the Government of India, were heard together. Amongst other grounds, both SLPs challenge the power of the Indian income tax officers to question residency of a Mauritius entity since determination of such residency is the sovereign right of the Mauritius government. It is analogous to the issue of a passport of a foreign country, which unless forged should be taken as sufficient proof of citizenship.

Supreme Court order

After hearing both sides for several weeks the court finally pronounced its judgment on the 7th October 2003 reversing the order of the Delhi High Court. The rationale for the Supreme Court order in brief is as follows.

  • The charging section of the IT Act (sections 4 and 5) are made subject to the Act and therefore also to S. 90. The Agreement therefore prevails over the Income Tax statute. Unless the treaty gives away something which the Income Tax Act charged, the treaty would be meaningless.
  • The circular would prevail even over the IT Act as per the terms of S. 90(2) of the IT Act.
  • The circular falls within the provisions of the Section and is not ultra vires S. 119.
  • "If in the teeth of this clarification, the assessing officers chose to ignore the guidelines and spent their time, talent and energy on inconsequential matters, we think that the CBDT was justified in issuing ‘appropriate’ directions vide circular No. 789, under its powers under Section 119, to set things on course by eliminating avoidable wastage of time, talent and energy of the assessing officers discharging the onerous public duty of collection of revenue."
  • The argument that the treaty itself is beyond Section 90 of the Act "deserves short shrift" merely "on account of its susceptibility to treaty shopping on behalf of the residents of the third countries".
  • Liability to pay tax is not the same thing as actual payment of tax. Therefore one does not need to pay tax so long as one is liable to pay tax in Mauritius. "It is, therefore not possible for us to accept the contentions so strenuously urged on behalf of the respondents that avoidance of double taxation can arise only when tax is actually paid in one of the Contracting States."
  • Treaty shopping – "It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, and rightly in our view, that if it was intended that a national of a third State should be precluded from the benefits of the DTAC, then a suitable term of limitation to that effect should have been incorporated therein." The Mauritius treaty is contrasted with the Indo-American treaty which specifically provides for such a term. The court rhetorically asks (referring to third country residents) "can they be denied the benefit on some theoretical ground that treaty shopping is unethical and illegal?"
  • The court states that if there are abuses such as reported by the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Indian residents misusing the treaty for manipulation of the stock market etc. then the legislature and the regulator are free to take appropriate steps.
  • Treaties are a result of political bargaining and there are several considerations behind entering into such agreements. "In developing countries, treaty shopping is often regarded as a tax incentive to attract scarce foreign capital or technology…In this respect, it does not differ much from other similar tax incentives given by them, such as tax holidays, grants, etc."
  • "The loss of tax revenues could be insignificant compared to the other non-tax benefits to their economy." Such practices might appear to be evil but "are tolerated in a developing economy, in the interest of long term development."
  • The court found that not every attempt at tax planning is illegitimate. Citing an authority the court endorsed "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether to avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." The court should not be guided by the assessee’s real motive and must deal with what is tangible in an objective manner.
  • We are unable to agree with the submission that an act which is otherwise valid in law can be treated as non-est merely on the basis of some underlying motive supposedly resulting in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as perceived by the respondents.

The Court has thus endorsed the treaty and the circular and has refused to interfere in what is essentially a legislative and executive function.

PS. The Court’s use of Macbeth strategically and sardonically is amusing.

© P.H. Parekh & Co.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions