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

Publish Date: 24 Jul, 2014
Print   |    |  Comment

Reverse charge on director’s service: an expansion adding confusion

Reverse charge on director’s service: an expansion adding confusion
 

An article by:-
CA. Pradeep Jain
CA. Preeti Parihar
Kushal Shah
 

Preface:-
The people of India have desperately voted Modi Government for change. The verdict of this budget represented the exasperation with the status scope. The journey of complications for the applicability of tax provisions under reverse charge mechanism under “the services provided by the director to the company” is expanded widely by introducing a new word “body corporate” is explained herein.
 
Backdrop:-
First introduction of the reverse charge mechanism on the services provided by directors to the company was by Notification No.45/2012-Service Tax dated 6.8.2012. This notification amended the notification no. 30/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 which prescribed the services falling under Reverse charge. By amending this basic notification, the services of director were brought under full reverse charge by adding the following clause:-
 “(iva)   provided or agreed to be provided  by a director of a company to the said company;”;
 
Also, the table given in the said notification was amended to insert serial no. 5A which prescribed that 100% service tax shall be payable by the company for the services provided or to be provided by the director.
 
Thus, by virtue of this amendment, full reverse charge was applicable if the following two conditions were satisfied:-
·        The services are being provided by a DIRECTOR.
·        The services are being provided to a COMPANY.
 
 
Recent Amendment vide Budget, 2014:-
Notification no. 10/2014-ST dated 11.7.2014 has been issued to amend further the clause related to services provided by director of a company to the said company. The above referred clause (iva) of the notification no. 30/2012-ST has been substituted as follows:-
“(iva) provided or agreed to be provided by a director of a company or a body corporate to the said company or the body corporate;”;
Thus, now, the reverse charge is also applicable if the services are being provided by a DIRECTOR to the BODY CORPORATE. Earlier only services provided by the director to the company were covered.
 
Implication of amendment:-
The recent amendment has made the reverse charge applicable on the services provided by a DIRECTOR to a BODY CORPORATE. Section 65(1) of the Finance Act defines the term body corporate as follows:-
“body corporate” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (7) of section 2 of the Companies Act,1956 (1 of 1956);.”
 
The definition of body corporate as per clause (7) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 1956 is as under:-
“ (7) "body corporate" or "corporation" includes a company incorporated outside India but does not include -
(a) a corporation sole ;
(b) a co-operative society registered under any law relating to co-operative societies ; and
(c) any other body corporate (not being a company as defined in this Act), which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf ;”
It is worth noting here that the Companies Act, 1956 has been substituted vide Companies Act, 2013. As per Section 2 of The Companies Act, 2013, the definition of body corporate is a under:-
“(11) “body corporate” or “corporation” includes a company incorporated outside
India, but does not include—
(i) a co-operative society registered under any law relating to co-operative societies; and
(ii) any other body corporate (not being a company as defined in this Act),which the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf;”
Thus, the definition of body corporate given in Companies Act is very wide and only co-operative society and notified bodies are not included in this definition. Therefore, all the other legal entities will get covered in the definition of body corporate, accordingly, the scope of Reverse charge has been increased drastically. Many such legal entities which do not fall in the definition of company but are very well covered in the definition of “body corporate” will come under service tax net if they avail the services of director. It is worth noting here that the term ‘director’ is not defined in Finance Act or in the notification no. 30/2012-ST. Therefore, general meaning shall have to be taken. In normal parlance, director means a person who is in charge of an activity, department, or organization or a member of the board of people that manages or oversees the affairs of a business. The synonyms used for the term director are administrator, manager, chairman, chairwoman, chairperson, chair, head, chief, boss, etc.
Since the term body corporate is very widely defined and the meaning of director is not given anywhere in the service tax law, its general meaning shall have to be taken. Also, it is nowhere specified that the definition of “director” will be borrowed from Companies Act. Even if we look into the definition of director under Companies Act, it reads as follows:-
 
“(34) “director” means a director appointed to the Board of a company.”
 
Thus, director means the director appointed to the Board of the company and the board is defined as follows:-
(10) “Board of Directors” or “Board”, in relation to a company, means the collective body of the directors of the company;
The cumulative analysis of these two definitions makes it clear that the term director used in the Companies Act is restricted to the “directors” of a “company”.
 
Since now the reverse charge has been made applicable to the “body corporate” too, in our view, the definition of “director” as given in the Companies Act does not apply here. Also, the term “body corporate” is wider as it covers company incorporated outside India too. Thus, in view of this fact and due to the fact that the definition of “director” is not given in the Service tax law; it is more feasible to take its general meaning. Due to this, in our view, including the services provided by directors to the body corporate under Reverse charge has drastically increased the scope of Reverse charge.
 
 
Good Bye words:-
 
Tax Research Unit (TRU) has released letter no. D.O.F. No. 334/15/2014-TRU dated 10.7.2014 wherein it has been clarified at para 4.1.2 as follows:-
 
Service provided by a Director to a body corporate is being brought under the reverse charge mechanism; service receiver, who is a body corporate will be the person liable to pay service tax. This is in view of requests by body corporates such as the Reserve Bank of India.

Thus, the said amendment has been made in view of requests by big body corporates.  However, unaware of the fact that the definition of body corporate is very wide and the term director is also not defined in the Service tax law; it is most likely that this is going to be a burning issue of future as the department will be liberal enough in interpreting the definition of “body corporate” which will bring a number of big and small assessees under service tax net which does not seem to be intention of government. We hope that the government issues a clarification soon on the interpretation of the term body corporate and inclusions therein alongwith the meaning of term “director” to be taken for the purpose reverse charge mechanism.
 

Comments

Post a Comment



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