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

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