The failed conciliatory talks between telecom major Vodafone and the Indian government to resolve a seven-year-old $2 billion tax dispute will, no doubt, occupy considerable mind-space among policy and regulatory watchers. While the government will face accusations of changeable regulations and rough treatment to foreign investors, Vodafone must understand that it needs to follow law of the land.
Though it has lapsed now, the settlement process of the Vodafone case, when it was announced, would have sent a strong and positive signal that India is committed to finding a solution to the impasse.
Now, the finance ministry plans to seek the Cabinet's approval to withdraw from talks with Vodafone Group Plc, after the British company pushed for the inclusion of a separate case on transfer pricing—involving the issue of shares in its Pune-based BPO arm, Vodafone India Services, to Vodafone Teleservices Mauritius for Rs 246.38 crore in FY08—in the talks. Revenue authorities feel that the transaction was undervalued and have asked Vodafone to pay R3,700 crore towards taxes—a claim that was halted by the sectoral tribunal in December.
The government could now raise
a fresh demand for the pending
tax amount, along with accrued
interest and penalty, from Vodafone, which entered India in 2007 by acquiring Hutchison Whampoa's mobile phone assets.
While the basic tax demand for the 2007-acquisition is R7,990 crore, the outstanding dues, including a penalty of a similar amount and accrued interest, run into R20,000 crore.
Several other MNCs watching the developments keenly include Shell India, which is fighting a tax demand of R5,500 crore on charges of underpricing an intra-group share transfer, and mobile major Nokia, which is facing a R21,000 crore tax demand for violating capital gains regulation in India.
Although both the finance ministry and Vodafone had expressed keenness to settle amicably the long-pending capital gains tax dispute, the company probably developed cold feet and added what superficially seems an unacceptable demand—clubbing of the transfer pricing case—leading to the collapse of the talks.
The government's approach towards the British firm has been under intense scrutiny for sometime now with experts saying that there seemed to be much more than what