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 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