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 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