Gas sale agreement charges treated as sale consideration; no TDS under works or technical service provisions.

Payments described as transmission charges under a gas sale agreement were treated as part of the sale consideration for gas, not as fees for works, technical, managerial, or consultancy services. On that basis, deduction at source was not attracted under sections 194C or 194J. The text also notes that where the recipient had already disclosed the receipts and paid tax, the levy under section 201 and interest under section 201(1A) was considered unsustainable because the tax burden had already been discharged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the payments described as transmission charges under the gas sale agreement were liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194C or section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether, in view of the recipient having disclosed and paid tax on the receipts, the levy under section 201 and interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the payments described as transmission charges under the gas sale agreement were liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194C or section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The agreement, read as a whole, was held to be a contract for sale and purchase of gas. The transmission-related charges were treated as part of the sale price and not as consideration for any independent works contract or technical, managerial, or consultancy service. The seller retained and operated its own facilities for delivery, but that did not alter the essential character of the transaction. The court also relied on the treatment of the transaction in the invoices and on the CBDT circular clarifying the position in similar circumstances.

Conclusion: The payments were not liable to deduction of tax at source under section 194C or section 194J.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the recipient having disclosed and paid tax on the receipts, the levy under section 201 and interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained.

Analysis: Since the recipient had shown the receipts in its books and return and had paid tax on the income arising from the transaction, the court applied the principle that recovery cannot be made again from the deductor once the tax burden has already been discharged by the recipient. On the facts, the invocation of section 201 and the consequential interest were therefore unjustified.

Conclusion: The levy under section 201 and interest under section 201(1A) were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The common orders of the appellate authorities were upheld, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed because the transaction was found to be a sale of gas rather than payment for works or technical services.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substance of the arrangement is a sale of goods, charges forming part of the sale consideration do not attract deduction at source as works or technical service payments, and once the recipient has already paid tax on the income, recovery of the same tax from the deductor is not warranted.

---