Tribunal: Gas sale agreement not for services. No TDS under Sec 194J. Interest not payable under Sec 201(1A).

The Tribunal held that the agreement between the assessee and GAIL was a contract for the sale of gas, not for technical services. Thus, TDS under Section 194J was not required. The assessee was not liable to pay interest under Section 201(1A) as GAIL and IOCL had paid their due taxes. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 194J versus Section 194C for TDS on transmission charges paid by the assessee.
2. Determination of whether the agreement between the assessee and GAIL constitutes a contract for sale or a contract for technical services.
3. Liability of the assessee to pay interest under Section 201(1A) for short deduction of tax.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 194J versus Section 194C for TDS on Transmission Charges:
The primary issue in the appeals was whether the assessee should have deducted tax at source under Section 194J, which pertains to fees for technical services, or under Section 194C, which pertains to payments to contractors. The assessee had deducted TDS under Section 194C for payments made to GAIL and IOCL for transmission charges related to the supply of gas. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) contended that these payments should have been subjected to TDS under Section 194J, as the services provided were technical in nature. However, the assessee argued that the payments were part of a contract for the sale of gas and not for technical services.

2. Determination of the Nature of the Agreement:
The Tribunal examined the nature of the agreement between the assessee and GAIL. It was found that the agreement was for the sale and purchase of natural gas, with GAIL acting as the seller and the assessee as the buyer. The Tribunal noted that GAIL was responsible for the installation, maintenance, and management of the pipelines and other equipment necessary for the delivery of gas. The delivery point was at the buyer's premises, and the title and risk of the gas passed to the buyer at this point. The Tribunal concluded that the agreement was a contract for the sale of goods and not for the provision of technical services. This conclusion was supported by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 86 dated May 29, 1972, which clarified that contracts for the sale of goods are not covered under Section 194C or Section 194J.

3. Liability to Pay Interest under Section 201(1A):
The A.O. had raised a demand for interest under Section 201(1A) on the grounds of short deduction of tax. However, the Tribunal found that GAIL and IOCL had already paid the taxes due on their total income, as evidenced by their tax returns. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. v. CIT and Eli Lilly & Co. v. CIT, which established that when the primary liability of the recipient to pay tax is discharged, the payer cannot be treated as an assessee in default. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to pay interest under Section 201(1A) as the recipients had already paid the due taxes.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A), concluding that the agreement between the assessee and GAIL was a contract for the sale of gas and not for technical services. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS under Section 194J. Consequently, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1), and the interest charged under Section 201(1A) was correctly deleted by the CIT(A). The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

---