Highlights of Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2019

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

by Vinod Kothari 

The Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2019 has been placed before the Parliament[1] on 25th July, 2019. While the Bill, 2019 is largely to enact into Parliamentary law the provisions already promulgated by way of Presidential Ordinance, the Bill also brings some interesting changes.

The key feature of the Bill is to replace the existing system of judicial prosecution for offences by a departmental process of imposition of penalties. As a result, while the monetary burden on companies may go up, but offenders will not be having to face criminal courts and the stigma attached with the same.

Some of the other highlights of the changes are as follows:

Dematerialisation of securities may now be enforced against private companies too

It is notable that amendments were made by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 effective from 10th September, 2018 effective from 2nd October, 2018, whereby all public unlisted companies were required to ensure that the issue and transfer of securities shall henceforth be done in dematerialised mode only. This provision alone had brought about major cleansing of the system, as in lots of cases, shareholding records included men of straw.

However, the reality of India’s corporate sector is private companies, constituting roughly 90% of the total number of incorporated companies.

The provision of section 29 is now being extended to all companies, public and private. This means, that the Govt may now mandate dematerialisation for shares of private companies too. Whether this requirement will be made applicable only for new issues of capital by private companies, or will require all existing shares also to be dematerialised, remains to be seen, but if it is the latter, the impact of this will be no lesser than “demonetisation-2” at least for the corporate sector. Evidently, all shareholders of all private companies will have to come within the system by getting their holdings dematerliaised.

CSR is now mandatory, and unspent amounts will go to PM’s Funds

When the provision for corporate social responsibility was introduced by Companies Act 2013, the-then minister Sachin Pilot went public to say, the provision will follow what is globally known as “comply or explain” (COREX). That is, companies will not be mandated to spend on CSR – the board report will only give reasons for not spending.

Notwithstanding the above, over the last few months, registry offices have sent show-cause notices to thousands of companies for not spending as required, disregarding the so-called reasons given in the Board report.

Now, the rigour being added takes CSR spending to a completely different level:

  • If companies are not able to spend the targeted amount, then they are required to contribute the unspent money to the Funds mentioned in Scheduled VII, for example, PM’s National Relief Fund.
  • Companies may retain amounts only to the extent required for on-going projects. There will be rule-making for what are eligible on-going projects. Even in case of such on-going projects, the amount required will be put into a special account within 30 days from the end of the financial year, from where it must be spent within the next 3 years, and if not spent, will once again be transferable to the Funds mentioned in Schedule VII.
  • Failure to comply with the provisions makes the company liable to a fine, but very seriously, officers of the company will be liable to be imprisoned for upto 3 years, or pay a fine extending to Rs 5 lacs. Given the fact that the major focus of the Injecti Srinivas Committee Report, which the Ordinance tried to implement, was to restrict custodial punishment only to most grave offences involving public interest, this by itself is an outlier.

Unfit and improper persons not to manage companies

The concept of undesirable persons managing companies was there in sections 388B to 388E of the Companies Act, 1956. These sections were dropped by the recommendations of the JJ Irani Committee. Similar provisions are now making a comeback, by insertions in sections 241 to 243 of the Act. These insertions obviously seem a reaction to the recent spate of corporate scandals particularly in the financial sector. Provisions smacking similar were recently added in the RBI Act by the Finance Bill.

The amendment in section 241 empowers the Central Govt to move a matter before the NCLT against managerial personnel on several grounds. The grounds themselves are fairly broadly worded, and have substantial amplitude to allow the Central Govt to substantiate its case. Included in the grounds are matters like fraud, misfeasance, persistent negligence, default in carrying out

obligations and functions under the law, breach of trust. While these are still criminal or quasi-criminal charges, the  notable one is  not conducting the business of the company on  “sound business principles or prudent commercial practices”. Going by this, in case of every failed business model, at least in hindsight, one may allege the persons in charge of the management were unfit and improper.

Once the NCLT has passed an order against such managerial person, such person shall not hold as a director, or “any other office connected with the conduct and management of the affairs of any

Company”. This would mean the indicted person has to mandatorily take a gardening leave of 5 years!

Disgorgement of properties in case of corporate frauds

In case of corporate frauds revealed by investigation by SFIO, the Govt may make an application to NCLT for passing appropriate orders for disgorgement of profits or assets of an officer or person or entity which has obtained undue benefit.

[1] https://www.prsindia.org/sites/default/files/bill_files/Companies%20%28Amendment%29%20Bill%2C%202019_0.pdf

The Insolvency Amendment Bill, 2019: Highlights

/0 Comments/in /by

By Sikha Bansal

(resolution@vinodkothari.com)

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2019 has been introduced in Rajya Sabha and will have a game-changing impact on the ongoing insolvency proceedings as well as the future of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Read more →

Introspection of RBI’s new requirement for greater inspection

/0 Comments/in , , /by

-Finserv Division

finserv@vinodkothari.com

 

The Union Budget 2019 had many odd talking points, especially for the banking and financial sector. From proposed recapitalization of public sector banks, relief in levy of Securities Transaction Tax (STT), proposing changes in factoring laws to increased supervision of NBFCs among others, this year’s budget created mixed emotions. One of the major changes that took everyone by surprise was granting exceptional power to the Reserve Bank of India for regulating and supervising non-banking financial companies (NBFC). One can say much of it is inspired by the ILFS saga.

In this article, we intend to pick up one such insertion in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 which, we think, has escaped critic’s eye, that is section 45NAA. This, according to the author, is likely to have an overarching impact not only on the NBFCs but also on their non-financial group companies if any.

Insertion of section 45NAA

While much have been said about the other insertions in the RBI Act, that is, RBI’s right to remove directors or supersede the Board of the NBFC or initiative resolution of the NBFCs, one section which has been devoid of the much deserved attention is section 45NAA.

The section allows the RBI to inspect or audit of the books of all the group companies of an NBFC, including the non-financial entities in the group.

The text of the law has been provided below:

“45NAA. (1) The Bank may, at any time, direct a non-banking financial company to annex to its financial statements or furnish separately, within such time and at such intervals as may be specified by the Bank, such statements and information relating to the business or affairs of any group company of the non-banking financial company as the Bank may consider necessary or expedient to obtain for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Companies Act, 2013, the Bank may, at any time, cause an inspection or audit to be made of any group company of a non-banking financial company and its books of account.”

In other words, the RBI will be able to assess and inspect the books of non-financial institutions like manufacturing or service companies, even though its jurisdiction implicitly lies within the domain of financial institutions.

Despite being a recent addition to the NBFC sector, extended auditing power by the RBI is a prevalent norm in banking. The following is an excerpt of Section 29A from the Banking Regulation Act[1], 1949, which provides the power to the RBI on similar lines:

“(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Companies Act, 1956(1 of 1956), the Reserve Bank may, at any time, cause an inspection to be made of any associate enterprise of a banking company and its books of account jointly by one or more of its officers or employees or other persons along with the Board or authority regulating such associate enterprise.”

However, there is a slight difference between the aforesaid provisions. On one hand, section 45NAA pertaining to NBFCs refer to the books of accounts of ‘group companies’ whereas, section 29A pertaining to banks refer to ‘associate enterprises’. To gauge the similarities between the sections, one has to look into the definition of the terms. The following is an excerpt from Section 45NAA-

(a) “group company” shall mean an arrangement involving two or more entities related to each other through any of the following relationships, namely:––

(i) subsidiary— parent (as may be notified by the Bank in accordance with Accounting Standards);

(ii) joint venture (as may be notified by the Bank in accordance with Accounting Standards);

(iii) associate (as may be notified by the Bank in accordance with Accounting Standards);

(iv) promoter-promotee (under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 or the rules or regulations made thereunder for listed companies);

(v) related party;

(vi) common brand name (that is usage of a registered brand name of an entity by another entity for business purposes); and

(vii) investment in equity shares of twenty per cent. and above in the entity;

(b) “Accounting Standards” means the Accounting Standards notified by the Central Government under section 133, read with section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013 and subsection (1) of section 210A of the Companies Act, 1956.”

Further, the relevant extract of section 29A of the Banking Regulations Act, relating to associate enterprises, is reproduced herein below-

“associate enterprise” in relation to a banking company includes an enterprise which–

(i) is a holding company or a subsidiary company of the banking company; or

(ii) is a joint venture of the banking company; or

(iii) is a subsidiary company or a joint venture of the holding company of the banking company; or

(iv) controls the composition of the Board of Directors or other body governing the banking company; or

(v) exercises, in the opinion of the Reserve Bank, significant influence on the banking company in taking financial or policy decisions; or

(vi) is able to obtain economic benefits from the activities of the banking company.

Despite some similarities in the two definitions, scope of “group companies” appear to be wider given the inclusion of related parties (defined under Ind AS-24[2]) and entities using a common brand or registered name. The meaning of the term “related party” has been obtained from Ind AS 24 and the same has numerous connotations including subsidiary, associates or entities upon which the reported entity has significant power of influence.

Undoubtedly, this is based on the learnings from the large number of scams that surfaced lately, especially the ones involving financial sector entities, but the amount of the power that has been bestowed upon the RBI is enormous. The intention is to allow RBI free access to all areas if it suspects anything foul happening in an NBFC.

Conclusion

A greater scrutinizing power bestowed to the RBI through section 45NAA has both positive, and, otherwise connotations. The power can be extended to inspect into corporate malpractices like accounting frauds, restrictive investment practices and undisclosed related party transactions through subsidiaries and associates that the RBI has reason to suspect. On the other hand, it also gives RBI discretionary powers to intervene and effect changes in private, non-financial companies on trivial grounds of misconduct, which is not always desirable. Control and corruption are opposite sides of the same coin. The coin has been flipped. Only time will show, on which side it lands.

[1] https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Publications/PDFs/BANKI15122014.pdf

[2] http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/Ind_AS24.pdf

IBC Amendment Bill, 2019: Will it bring distributive justice

/0 Comments/in /by

By Vinod Kothari

(resolution@vinodkothari.com)

Insolvency laws are all about distributive justice, inspired by the pari passu rule enunciated centuries ago. The key theme of insolvency laws is that since there is a shortfall of assets to pay off everyone, everyone with similar ranking of priorities should be paid proportionately. Read more →

Employee share based payments: Understanding the taxation aspects

/1 Comment/in , , /by

By Rahul Maharshi (rahul@vinodkothari.com), (finserv@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction

Employee share based payments (ESBPs) are an effective way of incentivising employees. ESBPs work as a two way growth strategy for both company as well as the employees. On one hand, it helps the employees to participate in the growth of the entity and in turn reap out the benefits from it, on the other hand it helps the entity to boost the growth rate and align the vision of the employees with that of the company. The ESBPs work as a catalyst for the employee growth as well as the growth of the company.

The theme of this article revolves around the taxation aspects of different types of ESBPs, but before we proceed further, let us have a quick understanding about the different types of ESBPs. Read more →

Private virtual currencies out: India may soon see regulated virtual currency

/0 Comments/in , , /by

-Kanakprabha Jethani | executive

kanak@vinodkothari.com

Background

A high-level Inter-ministerial Committee (IMC) (‘Committee’) was constituted under the chairmanship of Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) to study the issues related to Virtual Currencies (VCs) and propose specific action to be taken in this matter. The Committee came up with its recommendations[1] recently. These recommendations include, among other things, ban on private VCs, examination of technologies underlying VCs and their impact on financial system, viability of issue of  ‘Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)’ as  legal tender in India, and potential of digital currency in the near future.

The following write-up deals with an all-round study of the recommendations of the committee and their probable impacts on the financial systems and the economy as a whole.

Major recommendations of the Committee.

The report of the Committee focuses on Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT) or blockchain technology and their use to facilitate transactions in VCs and their relation to financial system. Following are the major recommendations of the Committee.

  • DEA should identify uses of DLT and various regulators should focus on developing appropriate regulations regarding use of DLT in their respective areas.
  • All private cryptocurrencies should be banned in India.
  • Introduction of an official digital currency to be known as Central bank digital currency (CBDC) which shall be acceptable as legal tender in India.
  • Blockchain based systems may be considered by Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) for building low-cost KYC systems.
  • DLT may be used for collection of stamp duty in the existing e-stamping system.

Why were these recommendations needed?

  • DLT uses independent computers (called ‘nodes’), linked together through hash function, to record, share and synchronise transactions in their respective distributed ledgers. The detailed structure of DLTs and their functions and uses can be referred to in our other articles.[2]

Among its various benefits such as data security, privacy, permanent data retention, this system addresses one major issue linked to digital currency which is the problem of double-spend i.e. a digital currency can be spent more than once as digital data can be easily reproduced. In DLT, authenticity of a transaction can be verified by the user and only validated transactions form a block under this mechanism.

  • Many companies have been using Initial Coin Offerings (ICO) as a medium to raise money by issuing digital tokens in exchange of fiat money or a widely accepted cryptocurrency. This way of raising money has been bothering regulators as it has no regulatory backing and such system can collapse any time. The regulators also fail to reckon whether ICO can be even considered as a security or how it should be taxed.
  • Some countries allow use of VCs as a mode of payment but no country in the world accepts VCs as legal tender. In India, however, no such permissions are granted to VCs. Despite the non-acceptability of VCs in India, investors have been actively investing in VCs like bitcoin, which is a sign of danger for the economy as it is draining the financial systems of fiat money. Further, they pose a risk over the financial system as they are highly volatile, with no sovereign backing and no regulators to oversee. It has been witnessed in the recent years that there have been detrimental implications on the economy due to volatility of VCs such as bitcoins. the same has been dealt with in detail in our report[3] on Bitcoins. They are also suspected to have been facilitating criminal activities by providing anonymity to the transactions as well as to the persons involved.
  • The future is of digitisation. An economy with everything running on physical basis will not survive in the competitive world. A universally accepted system for digital payments would require digitisation of currency as well.

What is the regulatory philosophy in the world?

As a mode of payment: Countries like Switzerland, Thailand, Japan and Canada permit VCs as a mode of payment while New York requires persons using VCs to take prior registration with a specified authority. Russia allows only barter exchange through use of virtual currency which means that such exchange can only take place when routed through barter exchanges of Russia. China prohibits use of VCs as a mode of payment.

For investment purposes: Russia, Switzerland, Thailand, New York and Canada permit investment in VCs and have in place frameworks to regulate such investments. Further, countries like Russia, Thailand, japan, New York and Canada have also allowed setting up of crypto exchanges and have a framework for regulating the setting up and operations such exchange and subsequent trading of VCs on them. On the other hand, China altogether prohibits investments and trading in VCs and the law of Switzerland is silent as to allowing setting up of crypto exchanges.

Further, China has imposed a strict ban on any activity in cryptocurrencies and has also taken measures to prohibit crypto mining activities in its jurisdiction. No country in the world has allowed acceptance of virtual currency as legal tender. It is noteworthy that though Japan and Thailand allow transactions in VCs, such transactions are restricted to approved cryptocurrencies only.

Tunisia and Ecuador have issued their own blockchain based currency called eDinar and SISTEMA de Dinero Electronico respectively. Venezuela has also launched an oil-based cryptocurrency.

Issue of official digital currency

Sensing the keen inclination of financial systems towards technological innovation and witnessing declining use of physical currency in various countries, the Committee is of the view that a sovereign backed digital currency is required to be issued which will be treated at par with any other legal tender of the country.

Various legislations of the country need to be reviewed in this direction. This would include amendments to the definition of “Coin” as per Coinage Act for clarifying whether digital currency issued by RBI shall be included in the said definition. Further, on issue of such currency, it must be approved to be a “bank note” as per section 25 of RBI Act through notification in Gazette of India.

Various regulators would also be required to amend their respective regulations to align them in the direction of allowing use of such digital currency as an accepted form of currency.

Key features of CBDC are expected to be as follows:

  • The access to CBDC will be subject to time constraints as decided in the framework regulating the same.
  • CBDC will be designed to provide anonymity in the transaction. However, the extent of anonymity will depend on the decisions of the issuing authority.
  • Two models are under consideration for defining transfer mechanism for CBDC. One is account-based model which will be centralised and other one is value-based model which will be decentralised model. Hybrid variants may also be considered in this regard.
  • Contemplations as to have interest-bearing or non-interest-bearing CBDC are going on. An interest-bearing CBDC would allow value addition whereas non-interest bearing CBDC will operate as cash.

Why should DLT be used in financial systems?

  • Intermediation: Usually, in payment systems, there are layers of intermediation that add to cost of transaction. Through DLT, the transaction will be executed directly between the nodes with no intermediary which would then reduce the transaction costs. Further, in cross-border transactions through intermediaries, authorisations require a lot of time and result in slow down of transaction. This can also be done away through DLT.
  • KYC: Keeping KYC records and maintaining the same requires huge amounts of data to be stored and updated regularly. Various entities undergoing the same KYC processes, collecting the same proofs of identity from the same person for different transactions result in duplication of work. Through a blockchain based KYC record, the same record can be made available to various entities at once, while also ensuring privacy of data as no centralised entity will be involved. Loan appraisal: A blockchain technology can largely reduce the burden of due-diligence of loan applicant as the data of customers’ earlier loan transactions is readily available and their credit standing can be determined through that.
  • Trading: In trading, blockchain based systems can result in real-time settlement of transactions rather than T+2 settlement system as prevailing under the existing stock exchange mechanism. Since all the transactions are properly recorded, it provides an easier way of post-trade regulatory reporting.
  • Land registries and property titles: A robust land registry system can be established through use of blockchain mechanism which will have the complete history of ownership records and other rights relating to the property which would facilitate transfer of property as well as rights related to it.
  • E-stamping: A blockchain based system would ease out the process of updation of records across various authorities involved and would eliminate the need of having a central agency for keeping records of transaction.
  • Financial service providers: They can be benefited by the concept of ‘localisation of data’ due to which their data is protected from cyber-attacks and theft. Our article[4] studies implementation of blockchain technology in financial sector.

What will be the challenges?

  1. For implementation of DLT: Though a wide range of benefits can be reaped out of implementation of DLT in various aspects of financial systems, it has still not been implemented because there are a few hindrances that remain and are expected to continue even further. Some of the challenges that are slowing the pace of transition towards this technology are as follows:
  • Lack of technological equipment to handle volumes of transactions on blockchains and to ensure data security at the same time.
  • Absence of centralised infrastructure or central entity to regulate implementation of DLT in the financial system. Also, the existing regulators lack the expertise to oversee proper implementation.
  • First, a comprehensive regulatory framework needs to be in place that ensures governance in implementation. The framework will need to address concerns like jurisdiction in case of cross border ledgers, point of finality of transactions etc.
  1. For common digital currency: Decisions regarding validation function, settlement, transfer, value-addition etc. are of crucial importance and would require extensive study. Factors that might be hampering issue of such currency are as follows:
    • Having in place a safe and secure blockchain network and robust technology to handle the same will require significant investments.
    • High volumes of transactions may not be supported and might result in delays in processing.
    • In case an interest bearing CBDC is issued, it would pose great threat over the commercial banking system as the investors will be more inclined towards investing in CBDCs instead of bank deposits.
    • This is also likely to increase competition in the market and lower the profitability of commercial banks. Commercial banks may rely on overseas wholesale funding which might result in downturn of such banks in overseas market.
  2. For banning of private cryptocurrencies: A circular issued by the RBI has already banned its regulated entities from dealing in VCs. Many other countries have also banned dealing in VCs. Despite such restrictions, entities continue to deal in VCs because their speculative motives drive the dealing in VCs to a great extent.

Conclusion

The recommendations of the Committee intend to ensure safety of financial systems and simultaneously urge the growth of the system through innovation and technological advances. Rising above the glorious scenes of these recommendations, one realises that achieving this is a far-fetched reality. One needs to accept the fact that India still lacks in technology and systems sufficient to support innovations like blockchain. Various reports have already shown that operation of blockchains consumes huge volumes of energy, which can be the biggest issue for the energy-scarce India. India needs to work in order to strengthen its core before flapping its wings towards such sophisticated innovation.

[1] https://dea.gov.in/sites/default/files/Approved%20and%20Signed%20Report%20and%20Bill%20of%20IMC%20on%20VCs%2028%20Feb%202019.pdf

[2] http://vinodkothari.com/2019/06/blockchain-technology-its-applications-in-financial-sector/

http://vinodkothari.com/2019/06/an-introduction-to-smart-contracts-guest-post/

[3] http://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Bitcoints-India-Report.pdf

[4] http://vinodkothari.com/2019/07/blockchain-based-lending-a-peer-to-peer-approach/

BLOCKCHAIN-BASED LENDING – A PEER-TO-PEER APPROACH

/0 Comments/in , , /by
Read more →

Ind AS vs Qualifying Criteria for NBFCs-Accounting requirements resulting in regulatory mismatch?

/4 Comments/in , , , /by

-Financial Services Division and IFRS Division,  (finserv@vinodkothari.com  ifrs@vinodkothari.com)

The transition of accounting policies for the non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) is on the verge of being completed. As was laid down in the implementation guide issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) was to be implemented in the following manner:

Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs)
Phase I

 

  From 1st April, 2018 (with comparatives for the periods ending on 31st  March, 2018)
·         NBFCs having net worth of rupees five hundred crore or more (whether listed or unlisted)
·         holding, subsidiary, joint venture and associates companies of above NBFC other than those already covered under corporate roadmap shall also apply from said date
Phase II From 1st April, 2019 (with comparatives for the periods ending on 31st March, 2019)
·         NBFCs whose equity and/or debt securities are listed or in the process of listing on any stock exchange in India or outside India and having net worth less than rupees five hundred crore

 
·         NBFCs that are unlisted companies, having net worth of rupees two-hundred and fifty crore  or more but less than rupees five hundred crore
·         holding, subsidiary, joint venture and associate companies of above other than those already covered under the corporate roadmap
· Unlisted NBFCs having net worth below two-hundred and fifty crore shall not apply Ind AS.

· Voluntary adoption of Ind AS is not allowed (allowed only when required as per roadmap)

· Applicable for both Consolidated and Individual Financial Statements

As may be noted, the NBFCs have been classified into three major categories – a) Large NBFCs (those with net worth of ₹ 500 crores or more), b) Mid-sized NBFCs (those with net worth of ₹ 250 crores – ₹ 500 crores) and c) Small NBFCs (unlisted NBFCs with net worth of less than ₹ 250 crores).

The implementation of Ind AS for Large NBFCs has already been completed, and those for Mid-sized NBFCs is in process; the Small NBFCs are anyways not required implementation.

The NBFCs are facing several implementation challenges, more so because the regulatory framework for NBFCs have not undergone any change, despite the same being closely related to accounting framework. Several compliance requirements under the prudential norms are correlated with the financial statements of the NBFCs, however, several principles in Ind AS are contradictory in nature.

One such issue of contradiction relates to determination of qualifying assets for the purpose of NBFC classification. RBI classifies NBFCs into different classes depending on the nature of the business they carry on like Infrastructure Finance Companies, Factoring Companies, Micro Finance Companies and so on. In addition to the principal business criteria which is applicable to all NBFCs, RBI has also laid down special conditions specific to the business carried on by the different classes of NBFCs. For instance, the additional qualifying criteria for NBFC-IFCs are:

(a) a minimum of 75 per cent of its total assets deployed in “infrastructure loans”;

(b) Net owned funds of Rs.300 crore or above;

(c) minimum credit rating ‘A’ or equivalent of CRISIL, FITCH, CARE, ICRA, Brickwork Rating India Pvt. Ltd. (Brickwork) or equivalent rating by any other credit rating agency accredited by RBI;

(d) CRAR of 15 percent (with a minimum Tier I capital of 10 percent)

Similarly, there are conditions laid down for other classes of NBFCs as well. The theme of this article revolves the impact of the Ind AS implementation of the conditions such as these, especially the ones dealing with sectoral deployment of assets or qualifying assets. But before we examine the specific impact of Ind AS on the compliance, let us first understand the implications of the requirement.

Relevance of sectoral deployment of funds/ qualifying assets for NBFCs

The requirement, such as the one discussed above, that is, of having 75% of the total assets deployed in infrastructure loans by the company happens to be a qualifying criteria. IFCs are registered with the understanding that they will operate predominantly to cater the requirements of the infrastructure sector and therefore, their assets should also be deployed in the infrastructure sector. However, once the thresholds are satisfied, the remaining part of the assets can be deployed elsewhere, as per the discretion of the NBFC.

The above requirement, in its simplest form, means to have intentional and substantial amount of the total assets of the NBFC in question to be deployed in the infrastructure area, both, at the time of registration, as well as a regulatory requirement, which has to be met over time. Breaching the same would result in non-fulfilment of the RBI regulations.

Impact of Ind AS on the qualifying criteria

The above requirement might seem simple, however, with the implementation of Ind AS on NBFC, there can be important issues which might result in the breach of the above requirement.

With the overall slogan of “Substance over Form”, and promoting “Fair Value Accounting” and an aim to make the financial statements more transparent and just, Ind AS have been implemented. However, the same fair value accounting can result in a mismatch of regulatory requirement, to such an extent that the repercussion may have a serious impact on the existence of being an NBFC.

As already stated above, once an NBFC satisfies the qualifying criteria, it can deploy the remaining assets anywhere as per its discretion. Let us assume a case, where the remaining assets are deployed in equity instruments of other companies. All this while, under the Indian GAAP, investments in equity shares were recorded in the books of accounts as per their book value, but with the advent of Ind AS, most of these investments are now required to be recorded on fair values. This logic not only applies in case of equity instruments, but in other classes of financial instruments, other than those eligible for classification as per amortised cost method.

The problem arises when the fair value of the financial instruments, other than the NBFC category specific loans like infrastructure loans, exceed the permitted level of diversification (in case of IFC – 25% of the total assets). Such a situation leads to a question whether this will breach the qualifying criteria for the NBFC. A numeric illustration to understand the situation better has been provided below:

Say, an NBFC-IFC, having a total asset size of Rs. 1,000 crores would be required to have 75% of the total assets deployed in infrastructure loans i.e. Rs. 750 crores. The remaining Rs. 250 crores is free for discretionary deployments. Let us assume that the entire Rs. 250 crores have been deployed in other financial assets.

Now, say, after fair valuation of such other financial assets, the value of such assets increases to ₹ 500 crores, this will lead to the following:

Under Indian GAAP Under Ind AS
Amount

(in ₹ crores)

 As per a % of total assets Amount

(in ₹ crores)

 As per a % of total assets
Infrastructure Loans 750 75% 750 60%
Other financial assets 250 25% 500 40%
Total assets 1000 100% 1250 100%

 

Therefore, if one goes by the face of the balance sheet of the NBFC, there is a clear breach as per the Ind AS accounting, as the qualifying asset comes down to 60% as against the required level of 75%. However, is it justified to take such a view?

The above interpretation is counter-intuitive.

It may be noted that the stress is on “deployment” of its assets by an IFC. Merely because the value of the equity has appreciated due to fair valuation, it cannot be argued that the IFC has breached its maximum discretionary investment limits. The deployment was only limited to 25% or so to say that even though the fair value of the exposure has gone up but the real exposure of the NBFC is only to the extent of 25%. Under Ind AS, the fair value of an exposure may vary but the real exposure will remain unchanged.

Taking any other interpretation will be counter-intuitive. If the equity in question appreciates in value, and if the fair value is captured as the value of the asset in the balance sheet, the IFC will be required to increase its exposure on infrastructure loans. But the IFC in question may be already fully invested, and may not have any funding capability to extend any further infrastructure loans. Under circumstances, one cannot argue that the IFC must be forced to disinvest its equities to bring down its investment in equities, particularly as the same had nothing to do with “deployment” of funds.

This is further fortified by Para 10. Accounting of Investments, Chapter V- Prudential Regulations of the Master Direction – Non-Banking Financial Company – Systemically Important Non-Deposit taking Company and Deposit taking Company (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2016 about valuation of equities:

“Quoted current investments for each category shall be valued at cost or market value whichever is lower”.

Hence, the RBI Regulations have been framed keeping in view the historical cost accounting. There is no question of taking into consideration any increase in fair value of investments.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is safe to say that while determining the compliance with qualifying criteria, one must consider real exposures and not fair value of exposures as the same is neither in spirit of the regulations nor seems logical. This will however be tested over time as we are sure the regulator will have its own say in this, however, until anything contrary is issued in this regard, the above notion seems logical.

Whether burden shared by captives comes under GST?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Extended clarification required

-Yutika Lohia

yutika@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

Interest subvention income are earnings received from the third party i.e. person other than the borrower. This scheme work as a compensation to the seller who intends to penetrate the market. They arrange low cost finance for their customers (though not low cost because the part of it is compensated by its captive unit).Therefore the seller (lender) offers subsidized rate to the buyer (borrower) and the discounts are borne by the third party who is either a captive unit of the seller or also by Central or State Government who plans to provide financial aid through subvention.

In the case of Daimler Financial Services India Private Limited[1] (DFSI), the advance authority passed a ruling where it was concluded that interest subvention is like “other miscellaneous services” which was received from Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited (MB India) by DFSI and will be chargeable to GST as a supply.

The case of Daimler Financial Services India Private Limited

In the said case, DFSI is registered as an NBFC and is engaged in the business of leasing and financing. DFSI is a captive finance unit of MB India where the customers get a rebate in the interest component when DFSI acts as a financer and the car is purchased from one of the authorized dealers of MB India. MB India is engaged in the manufacture and sale of car which is usually done through its authorized dealer. The difference interest amount for each transaction is paid upfront by MB India to DFSI who raises an invoice against MB India. Payments made by MB India for the interest subvention was done after deducting TDS under section 194A of the IT Act.

The assessee contended that the interest subvention received is an interest and is an exempt supply. Also, the GST law and the Indian Contract Act 1872 recognize that consideration for a transaction can flow from anybody. The loan agreement with the customers also mentioned the applicable interest rate, the interest subsidy received from the MB India and the net interest payable by the customer.

Several reference of rulings were submitted by the assessee through which it contended that

  • The interest subvention is a subsidy which is made to offset a part of the loss incurred by charging a lower rate of interest.
  • Consideration can flow from a person other than the borrower.
  • If a contract stipulates that for the use of creditor’s money a certain profit shall be payable to the creditor, that profit is interest by whatever name called.

The following points were put up by the department:

The department that DFSI had not borrowed money from MB India. Also interest income can be exempt when there is a direct supply. It was also put that the interest income exempt through notification is not valid for a payment made by third party. The whole structure was set up to promote the business of DFSI.

The department gave reference to section 15 of the CGST Act, where value of supply includes subsidies directly linked to price and the amount of subsidy will be included in the value of supply. Therefore “interest subvention” is an interest subsidy and hence chargeable to GST. Also it was noted that income booked by DFSI is shown under revenue from operations as subsidy income.

The ruling concluded that interest received by DFSI from MB India was to reduce the effective interest rate to the final customer is chargeable to GST as supply under SAC 999792 as other miscellaneous services, agreeing to do an act.

The law behind interest subvention

As per the exempted list of services[2], consideration represented by way of interest or discount on services by way of extending loans or advance is an exempt supply. As it is evident, that services exclude any transaction in money but includes activities relating to use of money i.e. processing fees falls within the meaning of activities relating to use of money and therefore charged to GST.

When there is an interest subsidy, there are two arrays of interest involved- “applicable fixed interest rate gross” and “Net applicable fixed interest rate”. The borrower is under no obligation to pay the lender interest on principal i.e. the applicable fixed interest rate gross. The lender pays at the net applicable fixed interest rate. The difference between the two arrays of interest is the interest subvention borne by the third party. Technically the consideration paid by the borrower is the subsidized rate of interest. The borrower indirectly pays the differential amount of interest through the third party. Therefore referring section 7 of the CGST Act, consideration paid by the borrower is in the course of business whereas consideration paid by the third party is for furtherance of business. The two considerations received are totally different as one is “interest” and the other is “interest subsidy”.

Further, referring to section 15 (2) (e) of the CGST Act, value of supply of includes subsidies directly linked to the price excluding subsidies provided by the Central and State Governments. The interest subvention received are directly linked to price i.e. the interest paid by the borrower to lender and should be considered as value of supply.

Also the definition of “interest” is defined by the council as – “interest” means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) but does not include any service fee or other charge in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred or in respect of any credit facility which has not been utilised;

The interest paid on money borrowed is under the exempted category of services. Interest subvention disbursed by the captive unit of the lender is not paid on any money borrowed. It is a form of consideration paid so as to promote the business indirectly. They are like any other charges and therefore should not be considered as interest on money borrowed.

Since interest subvention is not interest on money, the same is not an exempt supply and therefore under the purview of GST.

Conclusion

The Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) interpreted the law and considered interest subvention to be taxable under GST. Further clarification is still required on its taxability as  one may note that as per section 103 of the CGST Act, the rulings pronounced by the  Authority is only binding on the applicant.

Therefore, whether interest subvention is taxable under GST or not requires further attention from the department.

 

[1] http://www.gstcouncil.gov.in/sites/default/files/ruling-new/TN-16-AAR-2019-Daimler%20FSIPL.pdf

[2] http://www.cbic.gov.in/resources//htdocs-cbec/gst/Notification9-IGST.pdf;jsessionid=B71F3824BBE3E6EF8C805B56978C9C9F