Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update on Kar AAR on Director's Remuneration #37/2020

GST Update on Kar AAR on Director's Remuneration #37/2020
The havoc created by the advance ruling pronounced by the Rajasthan AAR in the case of M/s Clay Crafts India Pvt. Ltd. is the most vibrant topics for discussion amongst the companies as it ruled that GST is liable to be paid by the companies even on remuneration paid to its directors under reverse charge mechanism contending that directors are not employees of the company. The AAR while pronouncing adverse decision had also not considered various other facts such as TDS deducted under section 192 of Income Tax Act, directors reporting such remuneration under “Income from salary” and other provisions such as EPF, ESI. Although, this is not the first time wherein pro-revenue opinion has been affirmed by the Advance Ruling but the decision created much hype. However, within a short span of time, the Advance Ruling Authority of Karnataka pronounced a contrary ruling in the case of M/s ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL [2020-VIL-118-AAR]. The conclusion arrived at in the decision of M/s ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL is the subject matter of discussion of the present update.  
Although the ruling did not pronounce detailed ruling on the applicability of GST on remuneration paid to directors but the decision given indicates favourable opinion for the assessees on the said issue. The applicant, M/s ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL sought AAR in respect to the following questions:-

i) Whether various incomes such as partner’s salary, salary in the capacity of director, interest on various deposits, rent received for commercial and residential property, capital gain/loss on sale of shares shall be considered for Aggregate Turnover for the purpose of registration under GST?

ii)Out of given nature of income / revenue, when the supply, even if exempted, need to be considered?

Out of the many sources of income pointed out, our discussion would be restricted to inclusion of “Salary received as Director from Private Limited company”in the aggregate turnover for the purpose of registration requirement of the applicant.
The Authority has stated that there are two possibilities with the amount received by the applicant as Director which are as follows:-
  1. Amount received as Executive Director: The AAR has pronounced that Services provided as Executive Director by the applicant are as an employee to the employer and not to be treated as supply of services as per Schedule III of CGST Act 2017. Hence, such amount would not form part of aggregate turnover for the purpose of determining liability to get registration under GST.
  2. Amount received as Non-Executive Director: The applicant is a nominated director and the services provided in the nature of Non-Executive director is liable to tax under RCM in the hands of the company. This has been pronounced on the basis of the entry No. 6 of Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Hence, it will be included in the aggregate turnover for determining liability to get registration under GST.
Therefore, the AAR distinguished the liability to pay GST on the remuneration paid to the directors on the criteria of director being executive/non-executive. However, one important point to be noted is that the AAR has affirmed that the executive directors engaged in managing day to day affairs of the company are employees and are covered by entry no. 1 of the Schedule III to the CGST Act, 2017
Now, the question arises is that what course of action is expected from the assessees. It is very much clear that the advance ruling is binding only on the applicant and the jurisdictional officer and has only persuasive value for other assessees. Nonetheless, it is a matter of discussion as the Authority for Advance Ruling of two different states have pronounced two different rulings on the same matter. The National Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for deciding on conflicting rulings pronounced by AARs has not been constituted till date and is not operational. Consequently, such contrary rulings are adding to confusion amongst the taxpayers and it is hoped that clarification in this regard is issued soon so that unwarranted dispute may be put to rest.
 
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