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

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