Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON APPLICABILITY OF GST ON REMUNERATION PAID TO DIRECTORS -008/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON APPLICABILITY OF GST ON REMUNERATION PAID TO DIRECTORS -008/2020-21
The litigation as regards liability of the company to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism on payments made to its directors is not new and is continuing from the erstwhile service tax regime. The legacy has been travelled into the GST regime and various pronouncements rendered by Authority for Advance Rulings are instigating the fire of litigation in the GST era too. The present update seeks to discuss the recent Advance Ruling pronounced in the case of M/s Clay Craft India Pvt. Ltd. vide Order No. RAJ/AAR/2019-20/33 dated 20.02.2020 on the applicability of GST under reverse charge mechanism on remuneration paid to directors by a company. It is pertinent to mention that this is not the first decision wherein such adverse view has been taken. Similar view was already taken by the Authority of Advance Ruling Karnataka in the case of M/s Alcon Consulting Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. reported as [2019 (30) G.S.T.L. 678 (A.A.R.-GST)].  
In view of various queries being received by the assessees on the issue of payment of GST by the companies to payments made to its directors under reverse charge mechanism, the applicant filed advance ruling before the Rajasthan AAR for decision on the said issue. It was pleaded that the director of the company is in-charge of managing various day to day affairs of the company such as production, despatch, quality checks , accounting etc. and are being paid remuneration which is being reflected by the directors under their “Income from Salary head” in the Income Tax Returns and on which TDS is also being deducted under section 192 of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, all the statutory obligations such as deduction of EPF was being done by the company which indicated the relationship of employer-employee between the director and the company. It was contended that as the services provided by an employee to his employer are covered under clause I of Schedule III, the said activity is neither supply of goods nor supply of services so as to attract levy of GST. The definition of ‘employer’ in general parlance along with reference to various provisions under Companies Act, Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was made so as to justify that there was employer-employee relationship between the company and its directors.
 
However, the Hon’ble Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling, without discussing in detail the reference made to various provisions relied upon by the applicant under various Acts, held that the directors are not employee of the company and so are not covered by clause (1) of Schedule III to the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the company is liable to pay GST under reverse charge mechanism on the remuneration paid to its director in terms of serial no. 6 of the Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
It is pertinent to mention that the above decision has been rendered without considering the fact that the remuneration paid to directors is considered as “salary” under the Income Tax Laws. It is submitted that it is settled principle that if Income Tax Department, a branch of Ministry of Finance has held the amount paid to director as salary, then the GST department, another branch of Finance Ministry cannot take a contrary stand. In this respect, reference may be made to decision given in the case of Rent Works India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C.Ex., Mumbai-V [2016 (43) S.T.R. 634 (TRI.-MUM)]. It is submitted that in the erstwhile service tax regime, it was held that when it is established by the company that the remuneration paid to directors is actually salary which is fortified by the Form-16 depicting TDS deduction under salary head under Income Tax Act and other compliances such as deduction of Professional Tax, EPF etc. indicate that directors are employees, then no service tax was payable by the company under reverse charge mechanism. Reference may be made to decision given in the case of M/s Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST, Aurangabad [2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 207 (TRI.-MUMBAI)]. Therefore, when the company has proved that obligations under various Acts indicate that the directors are employees of the company, a contrary stand cannot be taken by the GST department so as to fasten the liability to pay GST under reverse charge mechanism. Hence, in our opinion, the company is liable to pay GST under reverse charge mechanism only commission, rent etc. paid to directors which are consideration for various services rendered by directors other than their capacity of employees. Therefore, the above decisions pronounced by AAR’s will surely be reviewed by higher authorities in the days to come. Here it is worthwhile to mention that the decision of Advance Ruling is binding only on person seeking the same and it is not binding on other taxpayers. 
This is solely for educational purpose.

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com