Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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