Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments
Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2759

Director of a company cannot be held liable for service tax default committed by company.

Case:-BHAVNA JAYANTIBHAI DESAI VERSUSCOMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., RAJKOT

Citation:- 2015 (37) S.T.R. 412 (TRI. - AHMD.)

Brief Facts:-The brief facts in the order-in-original dated 31-3-2013 indicates M/s. Bhavana Jayantibhai Desai as the proprietor of M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. and demand of Service Tax is confirmed against her when in para 13 of OIO dated 31-3-2013 contains the stand of the appellant that she is only an operator and company is responsible for payment of Service Tax. This issue raised by the appellant has neither been deliberated upon by the adjudicating authority nor the first appellate authority under OIA dated 13-3-2014. It is observed from the contract dated 1-4-2012 entered between BPCL and M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. that Ms. Bhavna Jayantibhai Desai is signing on behalf of the M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. as a Director which is confirmed in her statement dated 12-9-2012 stating that she is receiving a salary of Rs. 25000/- per month for rendering services and is not required to pay any Service Tax. As the issue involved in the present proceedings lies in a narrow compass, therefore, after allowing the stay application, appeal is taken-up for disposal.

Appellants Contention:-Shri P.M. Dave (Adv.) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that this is the second round of litigation as in the earlier proceedings demands were confirmed against the appellant as proprietor of M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. and the order passed by the first appellate authority was set aside under Order No. A/10883/WZB/AHD/2013, M/13412/WZB/AHD/2013, dated 17-7-2013 [2014 (33)S.T.R.175 (Tribunal)] passed by this Bench holding that the Service Tax from the appellant cannot be demanded as she is not the proprietor of M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. That after the order dated 17-7-2013 passed by this Bench another show cause notice dated 20-9-2013 was issued to M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot), Pvt. Ltd., and the demand was again confirmed upon the appellant as Director of M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. It was the case of ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that Service Tax liability of M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. cannot be confirmed against the appellant as she is only working as a Director of M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. and is only earning a salary of Rs. 25000/- per month and is not liable to pay any Service Tax confirmed against her. It was argued by him that M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. is a separate legal entity and the present appellant has only entered into the agreement with BPCL as being the Director of Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. That the appellant has only signed the agreement as a Director on behalf of the Company and cannot be held responsible for payment of Service Tax.
 
Respondents Contention:-Shri G.P. Thomas (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the Bench go through the service contract dated 1-4-2010 between the Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (BPCL) and Mrs. Bhavana Jayantibhai Desai, Director of M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. It was his case that the contract is entered between BPCL and the appellant Bhavnaben Jayantibhai Desai and she is responsible for payment of Service Tax as has been correctly held by the lower authorities.

Reasoning Of Judgement:-Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed from the Show Cause Notice dated 20-9-2013 that M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. have been referred to as the “Noticee” and the address of the company is shown in the show cause notice. Even Para 11 of the show cause notice dated 20-9-2013 calls upon Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. to show cause why the demand should not be confirmed against them and as to why penalties under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 should not be imposed upon M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. Nowhere in the Show Cause Notice Bhavna Jayantibhai Desai (the present appellant) has been called upon to show cause. However, the opening sentence of the brief facts in the order-in-original dated 31-3-2013 indicates M/s. Bhavana Jayantibhai Desai as the proprietor of M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. and demand of Service Tax is confirmed against her when in para 13 of OIO dated 31-3-2013 contains the stand of the appellant that she is only an operator and company is responsible for payment of Service Tax. This issue raised by the appellant has neither been deliberated upon by the adjudicating authority nor the first appellate authority under OIA dated 13-3-2014. It is observed from the contract dated 1-4-2012 entered between BPCL and M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. that Ms. Bhavna Jayantibhai Desai is signing on behalf of the M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. as a Director which is confirmed in her statement dated 12-9-2012 stating that she is receiving a salary of Rs. 25000/- per month for rendering services and is not required to pay any Service Tax. As the issue involved in the present proceedings lies in a narrow compass, therefore, after allowing the stay application, appeal is taken-up for disposal. In view of the facts available on records it is observed that the appellant, signing the contract as the Director of the Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., cannot be held as the service provider. Therefore, no demand can be confirmed against the present appellant when the original show cause notice dated 20-9-2013 was issued to M/s. Bombay Garage (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot and by no stretch of imagination it can be considered that the Director of a Pvt. Ltd. Company is the service provider in the present case. Based on the above observations, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by setting aside the order dated 13-3-2014 passed by the first appellate authority.

Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:-The analogy in the case is that when the assessee who is working as a salaried director and has signed the agreement with the other company only on behalf of his company then in that case the director of the company cannot be treated as a service provider and therefore cannot be made liable to pay any service tax which is the liability of a company because a company is a distinct and separate legal entity.

Prepared By:- Neelam Jain
 

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