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 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