Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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