- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Tata Consultancy Services v. State Of A.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals arise from a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court concerning the taxability of computer software under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (“the Act”). The High Court drew a distinction between (i) customised software developed for an individual client and (ii) standardised, mass-market software such as Oracle, Lotus, and similar products. It held that customised software may not constitute “goods”, whereas standardised software does, and is therefore liable to sales tax. Dissatisfied software vendors/licensees filed the present appeals before the Supreme Court of India. After hearing the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the issues have wide commercial ramifications and require an authoritative ruling; accordingly, the papers were directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for reference to a larger Bench.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether branded or standardised computer software constitutes “goods” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
- Whether a distinction should be maintained between customised software and standardised software for the purpose of levy of sales tax.
- Whether the transfer of software on a physical medium (tapes, disks, CD-ROMs, etc.) renders the intellectual property embodied in the software taxable as tangible goods.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Branded software is primarily intellectual property—an intangible product of creativity—and therefore cannot be regarded as “goods” for sales-tax purposes.
- The physical medium (disk, tape, or CD) is merely incidental; its value is negligible compared with that of the program itself, which is what the purchaser actually seeks.
- Upon installation, the program is transferred to computer hardware and the medium becomes redundant, underscoring that only a licence to use the program—not ownership of the medium—is conveyed.
- Software differs from music or video cassettes because, in commercial practice, the program is always transferred to another medium (the hard drive), whereas music or films generally remain on the medium sold.
- Precedent: Psi Data Systems Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1997) 2 SCC 78 held that the value of software media supplied with computers should not be included for excise assessment.
Respondents' Arguments
- The magnetic tapes or disks are essential carriers of the program; without them the software cannot be delivered, making the medium’s value inseparable from that of the program.
- The possibility of transmitting software by other means (e.g., direct key-in, telecom lines) does not negate the fact that, in the transaction under scrutiny, a tangible medium was actually used.
- Music cassettes, videotapes, and phonograph records are analogous, as their contents can also be transferred to other media; both categories should be treated alike for tax purposes.
- Once recorded on a physical medium, software becomes “tangible property” and is indistinguishable from other corpora; the Supreme Court of Alabama in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Mobile & County of Mobile (1996) described software as “an arrangement of matter recorded in a tangible medium.”
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Psi Data Systems Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1997) 2 SCC 78 | Value of disks, floppies, and CD-ROMs supplied with computers not to be included in excise valuation. | Cited by appellants to show that software media are not independently taxable goods. |
| Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (2001) 4 SCC 593 | Drawings/plans stored on disks become tangible, movable goods once embedded in a physical medium. | Relied upon by the Court to illustrate that intellectual property, when captured on a medium, may constitute goods. |
| Advent Systems Ltd. v. Unisys Corp., 925 F.2d 670 (3d Cir 1991) | Computer programs, once fixed in a tangible medium, are “goods” despite their intellectual origin. | Quotations adopted in Associated Cement; used here to support the view that software on disks is taxable as goods. |
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Mobile & County of Mobile, Supreme Court of Alabama (1996) | Software constitutes a “corporeal body” because it is recorded in a tangible medium. | Cited by respondents to equate software media with other tangible products for taxation. |
| Beta Computers (Europe) Ltd. v. Adobe Systems (Europe) Ltd. (1995) | Principle not detailed in the opinion. | Listed as part of broader comparative jurisprudence the Court proposes to examine. |
| Commerce Union Bank v. Tidwell; State of Alabama v. Central Computer Services, Inc., and other foreign decisions enumerated in para 6 | Principles not detailed in the opinion. | Referenced to underscore the breadth of international authority requiring consideration by a larger Bench. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reviewed the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s distinction between customised and standardised software and surveyed Indian and foreign jurisprudence on whether software embodied on a tangible medium qualifies as “goods.” Particular attention was paid to Associated Cement Companies Ltd., where this Court held that intellectual content stored on disks acquires the attributes of goods, and to the reasoning in Advent Systems Ltd. endorsing the same view. The Court acknowledged substantial competing authority and arguments highlighting the intangible nature of software and the essence-of-the-transaction test advanced by the appellants.
Recognising that the issue has “global implications” for commerce and taxation, and noting the diversity of precedent—both domestic and international—the Court concluded that a definitive exposition of law is necessary. It therefore refrained from deciding the merits and determined that a larger Bench of the Supreme Court should pronounce authoritatively on all aspects, including the customised-versus-standardised dichotomy, the nature of software as intellectual property, and the relevance of the medium of storage.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: The papers in these appeals are directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.
Implications: No final ruling on taxability has been given; the question of whether software constitutes “goods” under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act remains open. The decision merely initiates a referral, signalling the Supreme Court’s recognition of the issue’s commercial significance and the need for a conclusive precedent.
S. Rajendra Babu, J.— In these matters the Andhra Pradesh High Court concluded that software is of two categories — (i) software which is specialised and exclusively custom-made to cater to the needs of individual clients, and (ii) software which is standardised and marketed for the use of certain classes of clients, like the Oracle, Lotus, Master Key, N-Export, Ex. Unigraphics, etc. and held that for the purpose of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) it is not necessary to consider whether the definition of “goods” in Section 2(h) of the Act has to be read down so as to exclude software from it. The High Court took the view that the first category may not constitute “goods” for the purpose of the Act, while the second category are “goods” and held that they are leviable to tax.
2. The case advanced on behalf of the appellants is that the branded software which is an intellectual property being the product of thought, creativity and intellectual efforts cannot be “goods” for the purpose of the Act; that it is an intangible intellectual property and, therefore, cannot be “goods”; that software is an essentially classic form of intellectual property; that the value of the tapes on which it is sold is much less than the value of the software program itself; that the software program is always transferred onto the hardware and then the tapes are useless; that, therefore, the licensee/payer is paying for the program and not for the tapes or discs; these discs are different from music cassettes and videotapes, music reels, etc. because the program on the discs is separable and is always transferred to the hardware, whereas in the case of music cassettes, etc. though they may be separable and can be transferred to another cassette or tape this is not generally done and the music or movie always remains on the tangible property on which it was stored when sold; that there are other methods by which a software program can be installed, like, the program directly keying in the program through the console keyboard; that what is transferred is the right to use the program (which is a set of instructions) and not the tape on which it is stored; that though software has a physical component, these physical components are merely tangential incidents of a computer program, they do not change the program's clearly intangible character; that the essence of the contract is the right to use the software, therefore, the essence of the transaction test must be applied; that in PSI Data Systems Ltd. v. CCE (1997) 2 SCC 78 it is held that if discs, floppies, CD-ROMs are sold along with the computer, their value is not to be included for assessing excise duty; that a software program is a process that can be used to achieve a certain result whereas a music cassette etc. is the end product in itself.
3. While on behalf of the respondents the case of the appellants is resisted on the ground that the magnetic tapes, discs, are necessary to carry the program and for the transfer to the hardware and, therefore, the value of the tapes is equal to the value of the program; that the fact that the program can be transmitted through some other means does not take away from the fact that, in fact a tangible means was actually used; that music cassettes, phonographs and movie tapes are indistinguishable from discs and tapes because (i) they can also be transmitted by telephone lines and through radio waves, and (ii) the contents of music cassettes etc. are also transferable to some other medium belonging to the purchaser of the right to use; that software is a tangible property and software recorded in physical form becomes inextricably linked with the corporeal object upon which it is stored, that is, a disc, tape, hard drive, etc.; that the fact that the information can be transferred and then physically recorded in another medium does not make software any different from any other type of recorded information that can be transferred to another medium such as film, videotape, audio tape or books; that the distinction between books, films, videotapes, audio tapes etc. on the one hand and computer program on the other on the basis that the former cannot exist without a tangible medium and the latter can, is unsustainable because even a program has to be stored on some medium like the hard disc and books, music etc. can also be transferred from one medium to another; that in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Mobile & County of Mobile 200-622 Supreme Court of Alabama (1996) the Court said, “Software is an arrangement of matter recorded in a tangible medium and, therefore, constitutes a corporeal body”; that whether another medium was actually used should be seen.
4. This Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs (2001) 4 SCC 593, JT (2001) 2 SC 141 examined a similar question in the context of the Customs Act and Tariff Act with reference to the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 wherein several decisions rendered relating to levy of sales tax in the context of works contract were cited to contend that the drawings, plans, manuals, etc. supplied were in the nature of intellectual property being knowledge or know-how which could only amount to service and not goods. This Court is of the view that those decisions would not be of any help in the case in which the matter was being considered as the question before them was only whether the papers or diskettes etc. containing advice and/or information are goods for the purpose of the Customs/Tariff Act. In the course of the discussion several observations have been made as to the nature of the goods and the expression “goods” used in various contexts is also taken note of in arriving at the conclusion. It is specifically stated that once these drawings, etc. were put on the diskettes it would enhance the value of those goods and adopted the reasoning set out in Advent Systems Ltd. v. Unisys Corpn. 925 F 2d 670 (3d Cir 1991) that computer programs are the product of an intellectual process, but once implanted in a medium they are widely distributed to computer-owners though the program can be copyrightable as intellectual property it does not alter the fact that once in the form of a floppy disk or other medium the program is tangible, moveable and available in the market place and, therefore, would amount to “goods”. The fact that some programs may be tailored for specific purposes need not alter their status as “goods”. To arrive at these conclusions this Court referred to several decisions cited therein.
5. The debate adverted to by us as to development of customised computer software programs for a customer does not constitute computer and data-processing services because the true object of software development contract is not to obtain the services of the consultant, but to obtain software programs consisting of intangible intellectual property which is not taxable. The services used to customise and develop the computer software are part of the final software package sold and not separate computer and data-processing services subject to tax.
6. This debate will be incomplete without considering the decisions in addition to those cited in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. case (2001) 4 SCC 593, JT (2001) 2 SC 141 and those referred to in this order, to the following: Beta Computers (Europe) Ltd. v. Adobe Systems (Europe) Ltd. (1995); Commerce Union Bank v. Tidwell; State of Alabama v. Central Computer Services, INC 379 So 2nd 1156; BOB Bullock, Comptroller v. Statistical Tabulating Corpn.; First National Bank of Fort Worth, A National Banking Assn. v. BOB Bullock, Comptroller of Public Accounts, State of Texas; First National Bank of Springfield v. Deptt. of Revenue; Ray S. James, Director of Revenue, State of Missouri v. Tres Computer Systems, INC.; Comptroller of the Treasury v. Equitable Trust Co.; Chittenden Trust Co. v. Commr. of Taxes; Toby Constructions Products Pty. Ltd. v. Computa Bar (Sales) Pty. Ltd. (1983); University Computing Co. v. Hon. Martha Olsen, Commr. of Revenue for the State of Tennessee; Hasbro Industries, INC. v. John H. Norberg, Tax Administrator; Compuserve, INC. v. Lindley; Northeast Datacom, INC v. City of Wallingford; South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Sindney K. Barthelemy 643 So 2d 1240; Wal-Mart Stores, INC. v. City of Mobile & County of Mobile 200-622 Supreme Court of Alabama (1996); Kenneth P. Hahn. as Assessor v. State Board of Equalization; State v. Central Computer Services, Inc. (1977, Ala) 349 So 2d 1160 and Andersen Consulting, LLP v. Gene Gavin, Commr. of Revenue Services.
7. Deeper and further consideration is required in view of the importance of the matter having global implications. Therefore, an authoritative pronouncement is required on all these aspects of the matter. In that view of the matter, we think it appropriate to place the papers in these cases before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to be referred to a larger Bench.
Alert