Make My Trip Project

TAX EVASION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS WITH RESPECT TO THE CASE OF
MAKE MY TRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS.

By: Srishti Bansal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ...................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 1:...................................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 TAX EVASION ......................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 DEFINITION............................................................................................................................................ 7
1.3 THEORETICAL REVIEWS ON FACTORS AFFECTING TAX EVASION ......................................................... 7
1.4 LEGAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO TAX EVASION ................................................................................ 10
1.5 METHODS OF TAX EVASION IN INDIA ................................................................................................. 12
1.6 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................................................................................... 13
1.6.1 Julia Kagan .................................................................................................................................... 13
1.6.2 Samanwaya Rautray ..................................................................................................................... 13
1.6.3 Gagan Kumar ................................................................................................................................ 14
1.6.4 James and Nobes.......................................................................................................................... 14
1.6.5 AlAdham et al ............................................................................................................................... 14
1.7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 15
1.8 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 2:.................................................................................................................................................... 17
MAKE MY TRIP............................................................................................................................................... 17
2.1 ABOUT ................................................................................................................................................. 17
2.2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS ........................................................................................................................ 17
CHAPTER 3:.................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.1 FACTS OF TH CASE ............................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 ARGUMENT BY MAKE MY TRIP ........................................................................................................... 23
3.3 JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................................................. 24
1|Page
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179
3.3.1 As per High Court: ........................................................................................................................ 24
3.3.2 As per Supreme Court: ................................................................................................................. 24
3.4 ANALYSIS AND EXPLAINATION ............................................................................................................ 26
CHAPTER 4:.................................................................................................................................................... 28
4.1 RELATED TERMINOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.1 DGCEI/ DGGI:................................................................................................................................ 28
4.1.2 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE: ................................................................................................................. 28
4.1.3 TAX EVASION, TAX PLANNING AND TAX AVOIDANCE.................................................................. 29
4.1.4 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GST AND SERVICE TAX ............................................................................ 32
4.2 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 5..................................................................................................................................................... 34
5.1 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................. 34
CHAPTER 6..................................................................................................................................................... 35
6.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 35
2|Page
ABSTRACT
This report is a way to map laws pertaining to Tax Evasion in India and discuss about the famous
case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India and others relating to tax Evasion.
Make My Trip has been charged with an estimated amount of Rs. 75 Crore for an alleged Tax
Evasion which is considered illegal. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI)
filed a lawsuit against this online travel service provider for failing to pay the said service tax
collected from customers, as said by the various official sources. An investigation found that one of
Make My Trip’s senior executives at the company was also arrested last week the DGCEI officials
and released on bail later due to the inaccurate method of following the process of arrest.
A spokesperson for the company said the service tax lawsuit is an industry matter and 's lawsuit is
being challenged by the relevant authorities. The spokesperson in an interview said that "At Make-
My Trip, we firmly believe in an ethical, transparent and compliant corporate culture and adhere to
all national laws and regulations. The issue service tax case may be an industry issue that may affect
all Online Travel Agencies (OTAs). As recommended by our tax advisors, we have a strong case
and will challenge Issue with the relevant authorities. investigations are expanding our full
cooperation with authorities. In addition, company officials arrested by the authorities have already
been released in,". DGCEI's investigation revealed that the firm levied two kinds of tax. The first
being the Service Tax which is levied on 60% of the area rental price transferred by Make My Trip
with the Hotel, and the Service Tax is levied by Hotel on 10% of the total value of customer
vouchers. treats itself as a travel agency. The second category of service tax was called Make My
Trip (MMT) tax by the company which was wrong and hence malafide.
3|Page
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
1.1 TAX EVASION

Business owners, civil servants, service providers and other organizations in both developed and
developing countries have been asked to pay taxes by governments throughout the long history of
mankind and cannot escape national taxes.
To support this, there is an interesting saying by Benjamin Franklin. “The only things that are
certain are death and taxes.” The proclamation confirmed that all citizens were related to the tax
laws and that people had to recompense taxes from their earned income. Accumulating taxes from
citizens plays a crucial role for administrations to construct large dams, build transport organization
and provide quality community services to communities.1 Tax is the turning point, the benchmark
for the country's overall development and livelihood transformation, and the improvement of her
per capita income for individuals. According to a survey developed countries had a gross domestic
product and average income ratio of 35% in 2005, while developing countries had a share of 15%
followed by the third world countries having a share less than 12%.
In developing countries, like India, countries do not have systems to collect sufficient amounts of
taxes from taxpayers due to which it becomes difficult to increase the expected earnings amount.
One of the reasons why the tax system does not work smoothly is due to tax elusion and lack of
consciousness among the people paying taxes in developing countries, where inhabitants are not
obliged to pay the amount of tax expected of their country. In today's world, this has changed a little
as individuals pay taxes to the government. As the world evolves, tax compliance becomes an
afterthought, and tax avoidance and Tax Evasion are the main way out of taxpayers to avoid the tax
payment. Tax evasion refers to the use of unlawful methods to lower one's tax responsibility,
whereas tax avoidance refers to the use of legal methods to lower one's tax liability. Tax evasion is
dangerous to communities. States and international organizations have made efforts to combat
undesirable phenomena related to taxation, Tax Evasion and Tax Evasion.
1
(Saxunova and Szarkova, 2018 ).
4|Page
Tax evasion is a controversial issue that can lead to devastating losses to a country's GDP at the
micro level and is a particular concern of tax authorities. Participants in Tax Evasion activities have
been criticized by various individuals and groups, considering the losses inflicted on the country's
economy.
According to Dalu et al. (2012)2 Zimbabwe's tax system has the same Tax Evasion and tax
avoidance practices that make it difficult for the government to collect taxes from taxpayers. Many
countries, like Zimbabwe, face challenges to cover annual budgets and build various infrastructures
due to fiscal deficits from Tax Evasion.
While psychologists felt that Tax Evasion was a widespread societal issue, researchers, particularly
economists, agreed that Tax Evasion might be seen as a technical issue with the tax collecting
system.
Tax evasion practices are worse in developing countries than in developed countries. Tax evasion
is like a pandemic because it is out of control for the country. Tax evasion thus has a negative impact
on the government's efforts to improve the living standards of its citizens and the budget for public
spending, sickening the country's economy and costing an estimated 20% of income tax revenue.
Taxpayers may evade taxes for a variety of reasons. Important determinants include attitudes toward
conduct, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, tax knowledge, tax morale, the tax system,
tax equality, compliance costs, and moral imperative. Taxpayers who engage in Tax Evasion are
significantly impacted by additional factors as well. Tax avoidance, capital intensity, leverage, tax
losses, pay, profitability, context-specific tax awareness, interest rate, inflation, average tax rate,
and gender all fall under the category of ethical taxes.
According to the Annual Report in the year 2019/2020 of the Woldia City Administration Revenue
Office from 1 July, 2019 to 30 June 2020, 232,757,512 Ethiopian Birr was planned to be collected
from taxpayers. Though, the secretariat could only collect 198,537,785 approx. Ethiopian Birr.
Nevertheless, the remaining 34,219,727 approx. Ethiopian Birr was not collected by the office from
taxpayers. The reason for this was that several factors could have causes the taxpayers to stop paying
annual tax from their annual income. Leading to Tax Evasion or tax avoidance Based on a review
of previous studies, the researchers identified gaps by diagnosing the city government's tax
2
https://innovation-entrepreneurship.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13731-020-00142-4
5|Page
collection system. The researchers' decision to conduct this study was spurred in part by the fact
that no prior research has examined the variables influencing Ethiopia's tax collection system. City
of Woldia. Previous studies that concentrated on demographic, economic, social, and other issues
had another gap. The study, however, is primarily concerned with the conduct and other elements
that encourage Tax Evasion.
6|Page
1.2 DEFINITION
Tax Evasion is a term used to describe individuals, groups and companies who refuse to pay an
agency. From a legal point of view, this is a criminal act. The overall tax collection process faced
various challenges, most notably Tax Evasion. Tax evasion is deliberately committed by people
paying taxes by avoiding or concealing various documents that are evidence to the tax authorities.
Not paying the true tax amount is simply illegal. Tax evasion is a crime that distorts the entire
economic, political and social system of a country.
Tax evasion is a fraudulent practice that reduces the amount of tax paid by the taxpayer leading to
them having excess undeserved money.
1.3 THEORETICAL REVIEWS ON FACTORS AFFECTING TAX EVASION

Tax Evasion is caused by several different types of taxpayer wrongdoing. Taxpayers are motivated
to engage in this activity for a variety of reasons, including economic ones. Economic sanctions,
company slowdown, and the amount of taxation are a few examples of economic issues that can
have an impact. On the other side, the most crucial aspects are those related to law, society,
demographics, psychology, and morality.
The factor that influences taxpayers to evade is moral imperative. It is the taxpayer's principle and
duty to pay a practical sum of tax to the tax authorities without coercion by others. Paying taxes is
an intrinsic inspiration for taxpayers. When taxpayers have low tax morale, they fail to pay their
allotted taxes and commit Tax Evasion. When tax officials treat taxpayers responsibly and
respectfully, taxpayer morale, and thus taxpayer honesty, improves. Tax compliance can be affected
by demographics and other factors such as income level, marital status and religion. It is taxpayer
behavior that determines whether they participate or not.
Taxpayers' interest in Tax Evasion is determined by many factors. Factors considered in this review
include:
• Moral obligations have a normative effect on taxpayers to engage in Tax Evasion.
Tax fairness is another aspect that encourages tax evasion. National tax collection is influenced by
non-economic factors such as tax fairness. It is acknowledged that equitable tax collecting practices,
guidelines, and enforcement are necessary. Due of how unfairly taxes are collected, unethical
actions might happen. The taxpayers may benefit from tax equality. Taxpayers would regret Tax
7|Page
Evasion and submit their annual income to authorities without disputing the precise amount if the
tax rate is not just and reasonable. Considering tax capacity and acceptable tax rates helps maintain
fairness in the tax system. Governments decide who pays higher taxes and how much. Tax rates are
factors that make taxpayers pay less out of their income. Tax rates should be fair and reasonable to
payers. As stated by Gandhi et al. (1995) Allingham and Sandmo, Allingham and Sandmo (1972)
model shows that the tax rate at payment can be positive, zero, or negative, and an increase in tax
rate can lead to an increase in tax amount. suggests that the theoretical literature does not support
the claim that higher tax rates lead to increased Tax Evasion.
• Tax justice has a positive impact on taxpayers who engage in Tax Evasion.
Taxpayers must have a working understanding of taxes in order to understand the reasons and effects
of their participation in tax evasion. Taxpayers are less likely to participate in tax evasion if they are
told about it. The opposite is true for uninformed taxpayers. There needs to be a greater focus on
tax-related information to improve the knowledge of taxpayers and agency professionals. Tax
knowledge is a tool for increasing national revenues from taxpayers. Taxpayers are reluctant to
engage in Tax Evasion as authorities’ phase in various training courses for taxpayers on Tax Evasion
and other tax-related issues. Tax knowledge is an important factor for taxpayers to participate in
and deject Tax Evasion. When taxpayers do their daily day to day business without tax knowledge,
they may be exposed to certain risks of Tax Evasion (Thu, 2017). The discussion thus leads to the
following hypotheses.
• Tax knowledge hurts taxpayers involved in Tax Evasion or evasion of tax.
Peers, interest groups, government officials, families, and other organizations can all have an
impact on a taxpayer's decision to engage in tax evasion. According to Alkhatib et al. (2019),
peer groups have a substantial impact on taxpayers, influencing their tastes, values, and
engagement in tax evasion. Nearby interest organizations may function as a motivator for
taxpayers to engage in illegal tax evasion. Payers are affected by their peers and other
stakeholders as a result of this behavior, which is referred to as subjective norms. A taxpayer's
acquaintances are more likely to hide their taxes if they are unwilling to pay taxes to the
government. According to Abera (2019), tax evasion by small company taxpayers is strongly
8|Page
correlated with societal and subjective standards. The study's aforementioned hypothesis may
be supported by the discussion above.
• Personal rules have a positive impact on evading taxpayers.
Another factor that drives taxpayers to evade taxpayers is their attitude towards their behavior.
Attitudes are means of positively or negatively evaluating an activity towards an object. Numerous
studies have been conducted by various academics to define and identify the relationship of taxpayer
attitudes to Tax Evasion (Alleyne & Harris, 2017). If taxpayers have a negative attitude towards
taxation, they will be reluctant to pay their debts to government agencies. The contradictory is true
when people paying taxes have an optimistic attitude towards paying taxes.
9|Page
1.4 LEGAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO TAX EVASION
The Income Tax Act's Chapter 22 discusses the penalty for tax evasion and states that it is unlawful.
According to Section 276C of the Income Tax Act of 1995, anyone who pays taxes willfully
attempts to evade it or underreports income that exceeds Rs 25 lakh may be sentenced to at least six
months in prison and up to seven years in prison as well as a fine.
For reference the official and formal explanation of this section has been mentioned below.
“Section 276C Willful attempt to evade tax, etc.:
(1) If a person willfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade any tax, penalty or interest
chargeable or imposable under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be
imposable on him under any other provision of this Act, be punishable, -
(i) in a case where the amount sought to be evaded exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to
seven years and with fine;3
(ii) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three
months but which may extend to three years and with fine.
(2) If a person willfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade the payment of any tax, penalty
or interest under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him
under any other provision of this Act, be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and shall, in the discretion
4
of the court, also be liable to fine.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, a willful attempt to evade any tax, penalty or interest
chargeable or imposable under this Act or the payment thereof shall include a case where any
person-
3
https://incometaxindia.gov.in/tutorials/30.%20prosecution.pdf
4
10 | P a g e
(i) has in his possession or control any books of account or other documents (being books of account
or other documents relevant to any proceeding under this Act) containing a false entry or statement;
or5
(ii) makes or causes to be made any false entry or statement in such books of account or other
documents; or
(iii) willfully omits or causes to be omitted any relevant entry or statement in such books of account
or other documents; or
(iv) causes any other circumstance to exist which will have the effect of enabling such person to
evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act or the payment thereof.”6
5
6
11 | P a g e
1.5 METHODS OF TAX EVASION IN INDIA
These are some of the facts about the general categories of Tax Evasion that may be punishable
under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, tax
officials impose fines of up to Rs.5,000 on taxpayers.
The following are the methods of Tax Evasion:
• Concealment of Income for Tax Evasion
Section 271(C) penalties are between 100% and 300% of Tax Evasion if the taxpayer attempts to
conceal the original income or income.
• Account Audit Failure
Section 44AB requires taxpayers to audit their accounts or provide an audit report. Otherwise, the
penalty is he 0.5% of total turnover, total turnover, or Rs 1,50,000, whichever is greater. If the
taxpayer fails to file an accountant's report as obligatory under the provision 92E, the fine imposed
is Rs One Lakh or more.
• Non-Compliance with TDS Requirements
Each person who deducts or collects withholding the tax must also collect a Withholding and Tax
Account Number (TAN). Failure to comply will result in a fine of Rs 10,000.
If a company or organization fails to file tax withholding (TDS) or tax withholding (TCS) on time,
for delay he shall pay a fine of Rs.200 per day. Hmm. Such penalties cannot exceed the amount of
TDS. Additionally, tax authorities may impose penalties for providing inaccurate information or
failing to file a TDS or TCS return on time. Fines range from Rs 10,000 to Rs 1,00,000.
12 | P a g e
1.6 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1.6.1 Julia Kagan (June 18, 2022)7
In the article, she has defined a precise definition of Tax Evasion, its penalties and also shown a
comparative analysis between evasion and avoidance. It has been defined as an when a person or
organization intentionally avoids paying a genuine tax burden, this is prohibited. Tax evaders are
often faced with serious fines and criminal charges. It is an illegal act relating to the non- payment
or underpayment of the actual tax obligation. “According to the Internal Revenue Service, the
penalties include jail time of no more than five years, a fine of no more than $250,000 for individuals
or $500,000 for corporations, or both—along with the costs of prosecution.”8
The article also encompasses the reasons for qualification of Tax Evasion:
1. Tax payers’ financial position.

2. Taxpayers’ suppression of Income.
3. Reporting income under false name and SSN.
4. Taking of cash payments without reporting during Income tax filing.
1.6.2 Samanwaya Rautray (January 24, 2019).9
In this article, sir has mentioned about the apex court disapproving the arrest of Make My Trip’s
finance head over the alleged Tax Evasion without even issuing a show cause notice which would
have rather given him the opportunity to defend himself and hence later bail granted was granted to
him.
7
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxevasion.asp
8
Internal Revenue Services. "Part 9. Criminal Investigations-Chapter 1. Criminal Investigation Mission and
Strategies-Section 3. Criminal Statutory Provisions and Common Law-9.1.3 Criminal Statutory Provisions and
Common Law."
9
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/sc-takes-dim-view-of-arrest-of-makemytrip-com-
finance-head-over-alleged-tax-arrears/articleshow/67666338.cms?from=mdr
13 | P a g e
1.6.3 Gagan Kumar (June 13, 2019).10
This article draws notice to the Supreme Court's recent decision not to intervene with the Telangana
High Court's verdict on the GST Commissioner's authority to detain tax evaders. Both direct and
indirect tax laws have historically given their officials the authority to compel the compliance with
their terms.
1.6.4 James and Nobes (1999).
The government imposes taxes on businesses, government entities, and private citizens without
requiring any tax returns from such entities. Taxes may be broken down into two categories: direct
taxes placed on company earnings and individual income, and indirect taxes levied on consumer
payments.
1.6.5 AlAdham et al (2016).
The equitable distribution of wealth among citizens is impacted by the economic implications of tax
evasion. Additionally, the social component produces various social groupings that are driven by
tax evasion and discouraged by these people due to unfair competition.
10
https://www.businesstoday.in/opinion/columns/story/goods-and-services-tax-gst-commissioner-arrest-supreme-
court-indirect-tax-law-india-economic-offences-206443-2019-06-13
14 | P a g e
1.7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research paper is completely based on doctrinal research in compilation, organization,

interpretation, and systemization of the secondary source material. Legal principles and conceptions
of all kinds, including instances, legislation, and regulations, are some of the notions that are
included in the technique for doctrinal study.
The definition of "doctrine" is given as "a synthesis of many regulations, principles, norms,
interpretative guides and values derived out of diverse sources, it explains, makes coherent or
justifies a particular section of the law as part of a wider system of law." Whether they are obligatory
or not, doctrines might be more or less abstract.
This research paper is based on information extracted from secondary sources.
The data has been collected from various internet websites, research papers, news, you tube etc. In
the dichotomy of qualitative and quantitative research it is primarily qualitative and web based.
15 | P a g e
1.8 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The main objective of this research is to acquaint the readers with the concept of Tax Evasion, its
provisions and penalty and what are the main reasons and measures behind people evading from
paying the taxes to the government.
This research has also been done to get a detailed view of the Make My Trip V. UOI, 2016 case
which is rather a case of Tax Evasion of about 75 crores by the Make My Trip officials. The case
took a turn when one of its officials was arrested ‘illegally’ i.e. Without following a due procedure
as in accordance with the provisions of arrest under Cr.PC.
This research also mentions some of the recommendations and limitations which came across during
the reading and analysis of the said case.
16 | P a g e
CHAPTER 2:
MAKE MY TRIP
2.1 ABOUT
MakeMyTrip.com was created by Mr. Deep Kalra in the year 2000. Make my Trip.com or Make
My Trip was established to support India's rubber necks with instant booking and extensive choice.
The company began its journey by commissioning a trip between the United States and India.
This was propsed to offer a range of stylish products and services along with a new kind of
technology and devoted his 24/7 customer support. The company provides with assistance and
online booking results to meet every day special commercial travel needs. It offers travel products
and services such as domestic and international air tickets, holiday packages and hostel bookings.
Meetings, impulses, conferences, exhibitions. Domestic machine and train tickets, private car and
hack billing, B2B and chapter services. The company also provides access to airlines to and from
India. Indian and International Hospices. Indian Guest Houses, Indian Railways, Indian Machine
Operators. We also offer franchise opportunities. The company is the dominant market leader with
his 47% market share (PhocusWright, 2013), evidenced by the trust of millions of satisfied
customers. As of 31 March 2016, there are 16 captive travel outlets in 14 cities, including 1 in
Gurgaon office, 49 franchised travel outlets mainly selling packages in 43 of his cities, there are
counters in his four airports in India.
2.2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

• Deep Kalra, founder and executive chairman of the group
Mr. Deep Kalra is the founder and group executive chairman of MakeMyTrip Limited, the parent
company for MakeMyTrip, Goibibo, and redBus, three of the most well-known travel businesses in
India. MakeMyTrip, which was launched in India in 2005, ranks among the biggest online retailers
there. Since MakeMyTrip's start in 2000, Deep has served as CEO. In order to pursue strategic goals
such as product innovation and expansion, regional growth, business model innovation, and
corporate development, he assumed the post of Group Executive Chairman in February 2020.
17 | P a g e
From 2013 to 2016, Deep presided over the TiE Delhi Chapter. He is still an active board member
today. He serves as IAMAI's Vice Chairman and is a representative on the Internet Council of
Nasscom. As a member of the travel and tourism subcommittees of prestigious industry
organisations like CII and FICCI, Deep is also actively involved. He is a member of the Ashoka
University's governing committee and one of its founders. He is a founder member of "I am
Gurgaon," an NGO dedicated to enhancing Gurgaon's quality of life because he believes in the
power of citizen initiatives.
Mr. Deep has received awards from Ernst & Young (2011) for Entrepreneur of the Year—Business
Transformation and from KPMG (2012) for being the most influential digital figure in India. At the
TTG Travel Awards, TTG Asia gave him the Best Travel Entrepreneur of 2012 honour.
Before starting his own business with MakeMyTrip, Deep worked for GE Capital, AMF Bowling
Inc., and ABN AMRO Bank. He graduated from St. Stephen's College in Delhi with a Bachelor of
Arts in Economics and an MBA from IIM, Ahmedabad. Swimming, yoga, adventure sports,
quizzing, and travel are some of his passions.
• Aditya Tim Guleri- the Director
On April 3, 2007, Mr. Aditya Tim Guleri was chosen by Sierra Ventures VIII-A, L.P., Sierra
Ventures VIII-B, L.P., and Sierra Ventures Associates VIII, LLC, together known as the Sierra
Ventures companies, to join our board of directors. He has continued to serve on our board after our
first public offering in August 2010 when the right of nomination for Sierra Ventures businesses
expired.
Sierra Ventures' Managing Director is Mr. Guleri. Information technology software firms are Mr.
Guleri's primary investing targets. Mr. Guleri has also contributed to the implementation of Sierra's
India strategy and investments. Mr. Guleri has assisted in completing strategic exits from several
businesses, including several public firms, in his capacity as a venture capitalist. Currently, Mr.
Guleri sits on the boards of directors for Zycada, Hired, LeadGenius, Nexenta, Phenom People,
Shape Security, Townsquared, and Treasure Data. Before starting Sierra, Mr. Guleri created Octane
Software and ran it as its CEO from 1996 to 2000. In 2000, he successfully oversaw the merger of
Octane and Epiphany (Nasdaq: EPNY). Mr. Guleri was Vice President of Field Operations at
18 | P a g e
Scopus Technology prior to joining Octane. Mr. Guleri has a Bachelor of Science in Electrical
Engineering from Punjab Engineering College in Chandigarh, India, and a Master of Science in
Engineering and Operating Research from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
• Mohit Kabra- Group Chief Financial Officer
The group chief financial officer of the company is Mohit. He has worked at MakeMyTrip for over
6 years and has played a key role in supporting the inorganic development through mergers and
acquisitions, as well as managing the Company's financial accounting & planning and legal
compliance.
In his roughly 23 years of leadership experience in corporate finance, Mohit has held positions such
as finance director at Kohler India and financial controller at Pepsi Co. India. Various F&A
portfolios at Seagrams, Colgate Palmolive, and Nagarjuna Fertilizers are among the other
professional responsibilities.
Mohit is a certified cost accountant and a member of both the Institute of Cost Accountants of India
and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Mohit likes to travel with friends and family,
see movies, and listen to music in his leisure time.
• Rajesh Magow, group CEO and co-founder
The co-founder and group CEO of MakeMyTrip Limited, the holding company for the top three
travel businesses in India—MakeMyTrip, Goibibo, and redBus—is Rajesh Magow. Rajesh is a
supporter of several emerging Indian IT businesses who are eager to make their mark and was a
member of the founding team that established MakeMyTrip from the ground up. Rajesh believes
that India has a digital potential.
Rajesh, a veteran of the internet industry with experience working at the nexus of India's expanding
consumer technology and tourist sectors, is passionate about utilizing technology to revolutionize
the business and provide disproportionate value for consumers. Rajesh oversees MakeMyTrip's
strategy, operations, and administration of all business divisions in his capacity as CEO.
19 | P a g e
Rajesh was instrumental in carrying out the successful merger of MakeMyTrip with the Ibibio
company. Additionally, he oversaw the successful listing of MakeMyTrip on NASDAQ in the US
in 2010 after leading the company's first public offering. Rajesh serves as a mentor for the senior
management group and other high-potential team members at MakeMyTrip. Among the many
honors he has received is the Bloomberg Award for the Best CFO in India.
Rajesh also holds the position of Independent Director on the Flipkart board. Previously, he was the
interim CEO and CFO of eBookers.com's India business, which is now a part of Travelport. He
began his career with Voltas and has held top managerial roles with Aptech Limited and Quantum.
20 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3:
3.1 FACTS OF TH CASE

Make my Trip is a web expedition agency which has been alleged for Rs. 75 crore (seventy-five
crore) Tax Evasion. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), 11registered
case in opposition to Make my trip for no longer depositing service tax which it had accrued from
customers, as cited with the aid of using professional sources.
As in keeping with agency's spokesperson the service tax problem could be visible with the aid of
using the right authority. According to the norms of the agency Make My Trip was a moral and
ethical agency, the grievance standards become properly regarded and transparent, however beneath
Neath this situation, problem become in regard to non-submission of service tax and its evasion.
The case in step with tax advisors become investigated deeply with the aid of using the right
authorities, as the research went, few of the officers had been detained however later have been
released. Service tax was stated to be charged on the price of 14.5% (together with 0.5% Swachh
Bharat cess) and become additionally very tons mandatory.
DGCEI's research located that the agency was rather taking two forms of taxes, one being the service
tax at the price of 60% as negotiated with the aid of using the Make My Trip with different motels
in the direction of renting rooms and the service tax become on the price of 10% of the gross fee at
the customer vouchers with the aid of using and treating themselves as excursion workers. The
second class of service tax become being cited as Make My Trip (Make My Trip) Tax with the aid
of using the firm, the reassets said. As the DGCEI digged deeper into the problem and investigated
it in step with the method it become located that the web journey agency Make My Trip become
depositing Make My Trip tax which become now no longer the element at all, and the actual service
tax which become accrued thru renting rooms to the clients become being evaded.
Later the expected quantity accrued from service tax become located to be eighty-three crore that is
an approx. figure. This quantity become accrued from October 2010 to September 2015 from their
patron this is with the aid of using renting room for availing services. And out of eighty-three crore
sixty-seven crore become now no longer deposited within side the government's account. An agency
11
https://www.cbic.gov.in/htdocs-cbec/info-act/dg/dg-cei
21 | P a g e
professional become arrested with the aid of using DGCEI, Make My Trip additionally paid 25
crores to DGCEI beneath Neath protest however become in search of for money back further, Make
My Trip even paid 15 crore service tax because it became deemed susceptible to pay for excursion
operator. Due to a number of the indexed motives DGCEI ended up calling Make My Trip as lodge
service provider.
With the continuing process of investigation, the estimated alleged Tax Evasion of service tax by
make my trip company was seen to be 75 crores. The sources said that the company has made a
deposit of Rs 15 crore so far for the expected service tax liability and promised a deposit of Rs 10
upon hearing the CEO's bail application. At the same time, DGCEI conducted detailed background
checks on some of the 30,000 hotels that have agreements with MakeMyTrip. They said the
inspection carried out on 490 hotels so far showed that 212 hotels were not even registered with the
service tax authority. Recording all these facts necessary actions were taken, and many of the above-
mentioned hotel which were not registered were sealed.
22 | P a g e
3.2 ARGUMENT BY MAKE MY TRIP
MakeMyTrip argued in court that it is a booking agency and that its customers do not have to pay
service tax on services they receive from hotels and flights. The Excise Office claimed that the trip
had charged the customer a service tax and therefore had to be submitted to the government.
MakeMyTrip refuted this argument by saying that it only takes a commission when customers
book hotels and flights, and the rest is transferred to the respective hotels and airlines.
The court also questioned the verdict's method, stating that it was imperative that the department
first investigate whether there had been any instances of default by MakeMyTrip officials and later
considered the arrest by the DGCEI unlawful in 1994 due to the lack of a Show Cause Notice
(SCN) issued under Section 73 or 73A (3) of the Income Tax Act, and was therefore granted further
bail.
23 | P a g e

3.3 JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
3.3.1 As per High Court:
On Thursday 1 September 2016, the Delhi High Court indicted the Service Tax Department for
wrongfully arresting the Vice President of Finance of travel portal MakeMyTrip on charges of Tax
Evasion of Rs 67.4 crore. The court ordered the refund of funds that the Directorate General of
Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) had collected from his three travel portals, MakeMyTrip,
Ibibo and eBiz.com. The court found that payments by the company were not voluntary and were
made under arrangement. A fine of Rs.1 lakh was imposed by the Excise Board on each of his
three companies.
In its decision, a panel of two judges ruled that "the power of arrest should be exercised with care
and not carelessness. "Make My Trip's vice president, DGCEI's actions in arresting Mr. Pillai were
unlawful and violated Mr. Pillai’s constitutional and fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution," the ruling said.
3.3.2 As per Supreme Court:

The Supreme court disapproved the decision by the tax authorities of arresting the vice president
Mr. MK Pillai stating the unwarranted arrest was illegal and unconstitutional as the arrest was
made without even issuing a Show Cause Notice. The case of Make my Trip (MMT) is that on
January 8, 2016, DGCEI officials forced Make My Trip to immediately deposit service tax
collected from customers otherwise, the official will be arrested. In the absence of a Show Cause
Notice (SCN), Make My Trip was found to have failed to deposit the requested amount.
Service tax Department, initiated proceedings for each applicant in connection with the declaration
submitted by the applicant and a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was also issued. In other words, review
powers have been and continue to be exercised by the ST Commissioner's relevant Notified Bodies
in relation to each petitioner. If the Examiner (Assessing Officer) finds that any of these applicants
have violated the provisions of the Finance Act, within the meaning of section 72 of the Finance
Act (FA), that person's Assessing Officer (AO) will submit documents to that person could be
freely requested. Therefore, we will use our best judgment to make an estimate of the value of
taxable profits and determine the amount to be paid or reimbursed to the assessee based on that
estimate.
24 | P a g e

It is perchance a peculiarity of Income Tax Act that it does not have the power to reopen
assessments as in Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, examination within the
meaning of the section 72A FA is planned. Under Section 73 of the Finance Act (FA), you may
initiate a process to refund any uncollected, paid, uncollected, underpaid or erroneously refunded
service tax. Section 73(1) provides that her Show Cause Notice (SCN) should be served on the
person designated as the debtor of service tax for which the Shoe Cause Notice (SCN) has been
wrongfully refunded or unpaid or under collected or underpaid; It specifies a period of 18 months.
Non-collection, under-collection, payment, under-payment or erroneous refund is caused by: (a)
Fraud; (b) Collusion. (c) Intentional Misrepresentation. (d) Concealment of Facts. (e) breach of
any provision of this Chapter 5 of the Finance Act (FA) regulations made thereunder "for the
purpose of avoiding the payment of service tax" extend the statute of limitations from 18 months
to 5 years. Section 73 clause 2 of the Finance Act sets out the procedure for determination by the
Show Cause Notice (SCN). It had assumed that it would be impossible for adjudicators to
determine in advance the extent of service Tax Evasion.
The interim orders issued in two petitions have been made permanent. DGCEI has been instructed
to promptly refund to each petitioner the amount deposited for the claimed service tax within four
weeks at the latest without undue delay. DGCEI shall be required to pay simple interest at a rate
of 6% per year on each sum from the day it becomes due under this order until the date of payment
if any refund is delayed over the allotted time. Refunds related to this order will not affect the bail
Make My Trip has granted to Mr. Pillai.
The Court, in its decision, investigated and found the legality of the DGCEI in carrying out its
decision to search the premises of the two petitioners and subsequently arrest her two high-ranking
petitioners. clarified. The court's observations on the merits of the parties' arguments are in the
context of the above. This should not affect the decision-making process that may occur when an
SCN is issued by her DGCEI under the law to one of her two petitioners. Further, the Complainant
and all of its employees harmed by the actions of any DGCEI employee reserve the right to initiate
appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to claim damages and/or compensation.
Written motions were settled on the above terms at a cost of Rs. 10,000 rupees for each petition
paid by DGCEI to each petitioner within her four weeks.
25 | P a g e

3.4 ANALYSIS AND EXPLAINATION
Case of Make My Trip (India) Pvt Ltd V. Union of India & Others. (2016) shows that on January
8, 2016, DGCEI officials coerced her Make My Trip into immediately depositing service tax
collected from customers. In the absence of a Show Cause Notice (SCN), Make My Trip was found
to have failed to deposit the requested amount. The Finance Act, 1994 system does not permit the
DGCEI or the Service Tax Department (ST Department) to circumvent proceedings under Section
73A (3) and (4) of the Federal Code. That's it. Prior to making an arrest according to Sections 90
and 91 of the Finance Act. Arresting someone should only be done under extreme caution. The
DGCEI will not readily presume that a person collected service tax and withheld that amount
without depositing it in a federal balance, unless procedures under Sections 73A (3) and (4) of the
IA were followed. should not be
Consistent with the case, the Delhi High Court has ruled on appeal that the power of arrest under
the Service Tax Act must be exercised with caution and not lightly. Prior to arrest, the department
cannot assume/presume that an individual has collected service tax and has not paid it to a central
government account unless a decision has been finalized. Service Tax Office. Whether the assessor
is a repeat offender should be checked against Service Tax Department records. Make My Trip
allegedly failed to deposit the requested amount due to no Show Cause Notice (SCN). He found
that the Finance Act (FA) 1994 does not apply to the DGCEI.
Service Tax Department (ST Department) circumventing the procedures described in Section 73A
(3) and (4) Before proceeding with an arrest under sections 90 and 91 of the IA,
To the best of our knowledge, a duly authorized and authorized official of the DGCEI, must give
the wanted person an opportunity to investigate, describing the materials collected against them
and the circumstances which, in the officer's opinion, indicate the commission of a crime.
With regard to Section 89 (1) (d) of the FA, it must be established with some degree of certainty
that a person has collected Service Tax but has failed to pay the amount so collected to the Central
Government for more than six months after the date on which similar payment is due, and further
that the amount exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs now (enhanced to 1 crore), with the only possible exception
being if a person is demonstrated to be a habitual service duty evader. Such a person would need
to have a history of recurrent defaults for which there have been forfeitures, penalties levied,
26 | P a g e

executions initiated, etc. They would also need to have not filed a service duty return for an
extended period of time. Only the ST Department's historical records can be used to determine that
history. In such circumstances, it could be OK to use coercive food right soon, but the notes in the
train must also provide a convincing justification for doing so. It must be established with some
degree of certainty that a person has collected Service Tax but has neglected to pay the amount
collected to the Central Government after a period of six months from the date on which similar
payment is due and that the amount collected exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs at this time, with the exception
of a person who is demonstrated to be a habitual evader of service duty (enhanced to 1 crore). Such
an individual would need to have a lengthy absence from filing service duty returns, a history of
defaults for which forfeitures and penalties have been assessed, and a criminal past.
However, as there was no definite indication or proof of a criminal act by the assessee firm, the
arrest of the assessee company's officials was careless and in violation of Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution's Fundamental Rights. We also believe that the probing officers' actions, including
entering the assessee's property and forcing them to agree to pay under false pretenses of
performing service duty, violated Section 82 of the Finance Act of 1994 and were unconstitutional
because they imperiled the lives and liberties of the assessee company's employees.
Because there was no concrete indication or proof that the assessee firm had engaged in illicit
activity, the arrest of the officials of the assessee company was unlawful and in breach of
Composition 21 of the Indian Constitution.
We also think that the way the investigating Officers entered the assessee's property and coerced
them into agreeing to pay alleged service duty pretenses while not actually carrying a SCN violated
Section 82 of the Finance Act of 1994 and was unconstitutional because it infringed on the life and
liberty of the assessee's employees.
27 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4:
4.1 RELATED TERMINOLOGY
4.1.1 DGCEI/ DGGI:

The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence now known as Directorate General of GST
Intelligence is a peak intelligence association which performs under the Central Board of Indirect
levies & Customs, Department of profit, Ministry of Finance, with the responsibility of gathering,
compiling, and disseminating intelligence pertaining to the Central Excise and Service Duty
charges, as well as the fictitious Goods and Services Tax (GST) (introduced with effect from July
1, 2017). Previously, it went under the name of Directorate General of Anti-Evasion (DGAE). It
was founded in 1979 as a separate sect that was governed by the Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence in New Delhi, with regional offices in Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, and Mumbai. In 1983,
a Directorate with full authority was established. The Directorate was elevated to a Directorate
General in 1988, with four Zonal Units overseen by new Director Generals and situated in Chennai,
Delhi, Kolkata, and Mumbai. The Directorate General's role in developing the imminence of duty
illusion is multifaceted. Through its nationwide intelligence network, it creates intelligence,
particularly in new fields of responsibility, and disseminates related data.
4.1.2 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE:

It is a court order that is issued by the court in order for the competent parties in a suit or proceeding
to explain as to why that particular action should not be taken against them and to prove their
innocence. It is a formal document issued by the court during a course of disciplinary procedure.
It sets out the details of an alleged wrongdoing and asks the recipient to explain why disciplinary
action should not be taken.
28 | P a g e

4.1.3 TAX EVASION, TAX PLANNING AND TAX AVOIDANCE
In the landmark judgement of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Justice Reddy
12
noted that there had been "much legal sophistry and judicial exposition, both in England and
India, into the attempt to differentiate the concepts of Tax Evasion and avoidance and to discover
a common ground between them." The difference between tax planning, tax avoidance, and tax
evasion has been a long-debated subject in the arena of taxation law. In early 20th-century
England, there was a belief that tax avoidance was legitimate because it did not explicitly violate
a law, even if it did take advantage of a legal loophole. The line between the two, as the Supreme
Court observed in the aforementioned case, started to blur since widespread profiteering and a
decline in tax income were the results of Tax Evasion. Despite the fact that penalties for both may
not yet be applied, the current consensus is that tax avoidance is just as detrimental as Tax Evasion.
But as was already said, a number of countries have embraced GAAR, including India, which is
about to put legislation into effect that will make it illegal to undertake transactions purely for the
purpose of avoiding paying taxes. Contrarily, tax planning refers to the use of tax avoidance
measures such investments in provident funds, national savings certificates, and other measures.
Although all three had the same objective—to reduce a person's tax liability—it may be deduced
that the three were differentiated by the strategies used. The use of tax preparation strategies is
permitted by law, and the actions taken are not only supported but actively encouraged by it.
Contrarily, Tax Evasion is described as the use of legal loopholes to get benefits that the law did
not intend. Last but not least, Tax Evasion describes unethical actions taken to reduce tax
obligations that are subject to harsh legal consequences. Only one of the three is forbidden: Tax
Evasion. However, tax avoidance rules that would outlaw common strategies for avoiding taxes
are in the works, and if they are put into place, the distinction between evasion and avoidance
would become even more hazy.
The way forward:
Tax authorities and taxpayers have been at odds for many years over tax avoidance and planning.
Tax authorities are constantly seeking for ways to ignore transactions under the pretext that they
were planned for tax avoidance or evasion.
12
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abbbe4b014971140d27a
29 | P a g e

On the other hand, taxpayers consistently claim that transactions or structures are used for legal
tax planning. The House of Lords England addressed the issue of tax planning in the case of
Fisher's Executors and Duke Westminster, concluding that "a taxpayer is entitled to manage his
affairs within the law, so as to pay least taxes." This is commonly known as the Westminster
principle.
In the 1985 case of CTO vs. McDowell and Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court of India issued the first
significant ruling on the distinction between "tax planning" and "Tax Evasion," concluding that
"Tax planning may be admissible provided it is done within the scope of the law."
It is illegal to utilize colorable devices for tax planning, and it is immoral to promote or entertain
the idea that evading taxes through shady means is honorable. Everyone has a duty to the
government to pay taxes on time and truthfully.
Large firms' use of tax avoidance strategies costs several governments throughout the world,
including India, a lot of money. The government of India has had to revise its laws and treaties
with other nations due to the numerous instances of Tax Evasion that have come to light over the
past 20 years. The Indian government developed a number of regulations and standards to control
and deter tax cheating through the Income Tax Act of 1961 and the Finance Act of 2015.
In an effort to stop Tax Evasion, the Indian government is being proactive.
Due to multinational firms' use of tax avoidance strategies, many nations throughout the world—
including India—lose a sizable amount of money. The government of India was forced to revise
its laws and treaties with other countries in order to combat Tax Evasion as a result of several
incidences of Tax Evasion that have come to light during the past 20 years, some of which have
been discussed in detail above. The Indian government developed a number of regulations and
standards to regulate and deter Tax Evasion through the Income Tax Act of 1961 and the Finance
Act of 2015.
Chapter X-A of the Income Tax Act of 1961 contains the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR).
Although it didn't go into effect until April 1, 2017, GAAR was added to the Income Tax Act by
the Finance Act of 2012. GAAR's sole objective was to stop Tax Evasion techniques by enforcing
30 | P a g e

Section 96 of the Income Tax Act, which prohibits "Impermissible Avoidance Arrangements."
The law forbade any agreements or discussions that were made in order to receive a tax benefit.
A new corporate residence test that stated that if a foreign company's place of effective
management (POEM) was found to be in India, it would be a tax resident of India was replaced by
section 6(3) of the Finance Act, 2015. A corporation that wasn't an Indian resident used to only be
regarded one for tax purposes if it was controlled and managed there.
The Indian government adopted a number of steps in 2017 to align laws and regulations with the
Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) recommendations made by the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which may help reduce the risk of Tax
Evasion. These steps included BEPS action plans 13, 1, and 5.
31 | P a g e

4.1.4 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GST AND SERVICE TAX
13
13
IMAGE FROM: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/policy-trends/indias-gst-is-it-a-modified-value-
added-tax/articleshow/59296116.cms
32 | P a g e

4.2 LIMITATIONS
While researching and reading the articles, there have been certain backdrops and limitations
which need to be filled in order to get a clear and precise view of the Tax Evasion and legal
provisions of the said term.
• Clash in ideology of other researcher, editors of journal, and public readers.
• Due to war of ideas or any kind of disagreement in between various researcher and public
leaders and different views which tends to divert the main area of concern that is one of
the clogs in the research.
• Non-effective explanation which leads to incomplete conclusion.
• Half way explanation is never beneficial as often partial information makes assumptions
which are hypothetical in nature and not the real actual facts.
• Confidential matters of the organization are not completely accessible.
• Some matters are kept away from public’s eye, if not done then everybody would have
access to organization’s internal matter and could lead to its downfall and tons of fraud.
Protection of these inner matter is one of the major concerns of an organization and a
treasure for competitors.
• Lack in incomplete statistical information.
• Correct statistical figures are not evenly provided. All outstanding, evasion, avoidance
and prepaid are not displayed this leads to confusion and maintains total unawareness
among public.
33 | P a g e

CHAPTER 5
5.1 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

In my Opinion, the arrest of Mr. MK Pillai was un warranted and hence illegal but the main focus
from the Tax Evasion shifted to the arrest per se was one thing which is yet to be covered and put
into thought. Make My Trip paid Rs. 15.34 Crore plus a total of Rs. 70 Crore during investigation
to the said officials but after the arrest and proceedings a refund of Rs. 67 Crore was also initiated
to Make My Trip. Evading the taxes and deceiving the government from what we are mandatorily
supposed to do is something, which should not be accepted.
Here are some of the observations regarding tax Evasion and how not evading it can benefit both
the customers and the government.
• Benefits for Consumers
The constant flow of input tax credits between the producer, retailer, and service provider will
result in transparency in the pricing of supplies;
Long-term decrease in cascading effect will result in lower commodity prices;
Small merchants will either suffer with extremely low tax rates or be excluded;
The elimination of poverty will be aided by the creation of greater jobs and financial resources.
• Benefit to the Government
Tax revenue can be used by the government to advance a developing country.
It will support the development of a unified Indian national market, fostering foreign investment
and the "Make in India" programme;
It will result in the harmonisation of laws, processes, and tax rates between the federal government
and the states as well as the states. It will also improve GDP by boosting manufacturing and
exports, creating more jobs and generating more GDP through meaningful employment.
34 | P a g e

CHAPTER 6
6.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
Primary Sources
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Finance Act, 2022 (Amended)
The code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Constitution of India, 1950
Web Sources
https://innovation-entrepreneurship.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13731-020-00142-4
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxevasion.asp
Internal Revenue Services. "Part 9. Criminal Investigations-Chapter 1. Criminal Investigation
Mission and Strategies-Section 3. Criminal Statutory Provisions and Common Law-9.1.3 Criminal
Statutory Provisions and Common Law."
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/sc-takes-dim-view-of-arrest-of-
makemytrip-com-finance-head-over-alleged-tax-arrears/articleshow/67666338.cms?from=mdr
https://www.businesstoday.in/opinion/columns/story/goods-and-services-tax-gst-commissioner-
arrest-supreme-court-indirect-tax-law-india-economic-offences-206443-2019-06-13
https://www.cbic.gov.in/htdocs-cbec/info-act/dg/dg-cei
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abbbe4b014971140d27a
35 | P a g e

Thank You.
36 | P a g e

Make My Trip Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Make My Trip Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TAX EVASION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS WITH RESPECT TO THE CASE OF

MAKE MY TRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS.

DECLARATION ...................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.1 TAX EVASION

1.3 THEORETICAL REVIEWS ON FACTORS AFFECTING TAX EVASION

• Moral obligations have a normative effect on taxpayers to engage in Tax Evasion.

• Tax knowledge hurts taxpayers involved in Tax Evasion or evasion of tax.

• Personal rules have a positive impact on evading taxpayers.

“Section 276C Willful attempt to evade tax, etc.:

The following are the methods of Tax Evasion:

• Concealment of Income for Tax Evasion

• Account Audit Failure

• Non-Compliance with TDS Requirements

1.6.1 Julia Kagan (June 18, 2022)7

1. Tax payers’ financial position.

1.6.2 Samanwaya Rautray (January 24, 2019).9

1.6.4 James and Nobes (1999).

1.6.5 AlAdham et al (2016).

This research paper is completely based on doctrinal research in compilation, organization,

This research paper is based on information extracted from secondary sources.

2.2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

• Aditya Tim Guleri- the Director

• Mohit Kabra- Group Chief Financial Officer

• Rajesh Magow, group CEO and co-founder

3.1 FACTS OF TH CASE

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

3.3.2 As per Supreme Court:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

4.1 RELATED TERMINOLOGY

4.1.1 DGCEI/ DGGI:

4.1.2 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

The way forward:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

In an effort to stop Tax Evasion, the Indian government is being proactive.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

5.1 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

• Benefits for Consumers

Long-term decrease in cascading effect will result in lower commodity prices;

• Benefit to the Government

Tax revenue can be used by the government to advance a developing country.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

6.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335179

You might also like