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 Sep, 2015
Print   |    |  Comment

SERVICE TAX ON DIRECTOR’S REMUNERATION-INSTIGATING LITIGATION!

SERVICE TAX ON DIRECTOR’S REMUNERATION-INSTIGATING LITIGATION!

 

An Article By:-
CA PRADEEP JAIN
CA NEETU SUKHWANI

 
Introduction:- The issue regarding leviability of service tax on remuneration paid to the directors has been matter of concern since 07.08.2012 when reverse charge mechanism was introduced vide notification no. 45/2012-ST dated 07.08.2012 for the service tax liability as regards services provided by a director to a company.  The question as regards what kind of amount paid to the directors is leviable to service tax has haunted the minds of various company assessees because since then, a number of companies have been slapped service tax demands with interest and equivalent penalties for non-payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism for amounts paid to the directors. The amendment made in the Budget 2014 vide Notification no. 10/2014-ST dated 11.07.2014 has further added fuel to the fire of litigation by extending reverse charge mechanism for services provided by directors to company or a body corporate and the defination of body corporate under section 2(11) of the Companies Act, 2013 has a very wide scope. In this article, an attempt is made to untangle the conceptions taken as regards service tax liability with respect to services provided by directors.

Quick look at relevant statutory provisions:-Entry no. 5A of the Notification no. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 reads as follows:-

Sl. No. Description of service % of service tax payable by service provider % of service tax payable by service receiver
5A In respect of services provided or agreed to be provided by a director of a company or a body corporate to the said company or the body corporate. - 100%

 
The defination of service as given under section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994 is produced as follows:-
 
“Service” means any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration, and includes a declared service, but shall not include-
 
(a)An activity which constitutes merely,-
(i)    A transfer of title in goods or immovable property, by way of sale, gift or in any other manner; or
(ii)  Such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods which is deemed to be a sale within the meaning of clause 29(A) of article 366 of the Constitution; or
(iii)A transaction in money or actionable claim;
(b)A provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment;
(c)  Fees taken in any court or tribunal established under any law for the time being in force.
 
Analysis of the statutory provisions:-It is pertinent to note that the whole time directors, managing directors and executive directors are engaged in managing day to day functioning of the company or the body corporate and so can be considered as employees of the company. Furthermore, the fact that the TDS is deducted under section 192 Income Tax Act, 1961 on the salary/remuneration paid to the whole time directors/managing directors/executive directors is conclusive evidence that the amount paid as remuneration is nothing but consideration paid for services rendered by such directors in the capacity of employee of the company. Furthermore, the fact that remuneration received by the whole time directors, managing directors etc. is shown in their Income Tax Returns under the head ‘Income from Salary’ also fortifies the fact that the amount received is in lieu of their employment with the company. As such, when CBDT, being one of the wing of the government department is accepting the amount paid to the managing directors, whole time directors etc. as salary in lieu of employment, the other wing of the government department, i.e., CBEC cannot take a contrary stand to levy service tax on the same. Therefore, the consideration received by the directors in lieu of managing day to day affairs of the company is infact in the capacity of employee and cannot be considered as ‘service’ as per the defination of service given under section 65B(44) of the Finance Act. When the activity of managing day to day affairs of the company by a director is treated as in relation to employment, the said activity is outside the purview of the defination of service and consequently no service tax is leviable on the same. Furthermore, when an activity is not within the ambit of ‘service’, the question of reverse charge mechanism does not arise. However, following points are also worth observing in this context:-
ØThe serial no. 5A of the notification no. 30/2012-ST does not makes distinction between different types of directors. Therefore, service tax demands are being raised on payments made to all directors by the company. However, service tax should be demanded on the amount paid to non-executive directors only and other amounts paid to executive directors such as sitting fees, commission etc.
ØThe exclusion clause in the defination of service does not specify whether directors are to be treated as employees of the company. It only mentions that the service provided by an employee to employer during the course of employment to be excluded from the defination of service. Now, who all are treated as employees remains debatable.
ØGeneral Circular No. 24/2012 dated 09.08.2012 issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs confirms the fact that service tax is payable on the commission/sitting fees payable to the Non-Whole Time Directors of the company and the increase in the quantum of remuneration paid to them on account of service tax will not be considered for the purpose of approval of Central Government under section 309 and 310 of the Companies Act even if it exceeds the limit of 1% or 3% of the profit. This indicates that even the MCA, which is a part of government, believes that service tax is payable only on the sitting fees/commission payable to the directors and not on the salary paid to them during the course of employment.
ØCircular no. 115/09/2009-ST dated 31.07.2009 issued by CBEC in positive list tax regime clarified that remunerations paid to Managing Director / Directors of companies whether whole-time or independent when being compensated for their performance as Managing Director/Directors would not be liable to service tax. This indicates that amounts paid in relation to employment is not leviable to service tax.

Before Parting:-It can be concluded that service tax is payable only on the amounts paid to the directors other than in lieu of their capacity as employee of the company. Furthermore, the non-executive directors of the company are not paid salary as they are not involved in executing/managing day to day affairs of the company. Therefore, the sitting fees/commission etc. payable to non-executive directors and the executive/whole time directors/managing directors is leviable to service tax. However, amount paid as salary for which TDS is deducted under section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not leviable to service tax as the said amount is received by the directors in lieu of their employment with the company. It is practically observed that various companies are being raised demand for service tax on the total amount paid to the directors but one is required to examine the amounts for which service tax is leviable. Furthermore, the companies should pay service tax on the sitting fees/commission and other amounts paid to the directors which do not form part of salary because the company is entitled to take cenvat credit of the amount paid as service tax under reverse charge mechanism on the strength of challan. As such, there is no loss to the company in paying service tax and instead, non payment of service tax may attract interest and penal consequences.
 

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