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
Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2014-15/2546

Whether director of company can be made liable for service tax payable by company ?

Case:-  BHAVNA JAYANTIBHAI DESAI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., RAJKOT
 
Citation:-  2015 (37) S.T.R. 385 (Tri.- Ahmd)

Brief facts:- This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. RJT-XCUS-OOO-APP dated 13-3-2014. 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.

Appellant’s contention:- 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.

Respondent’s contention:- 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 judgment:- 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 crux of the case is that the director functioning on behalf the company cannot be considered as service provider. It is the company that itself is liable for paying service tax for the services provided by it and not the director.   

Prepared by:Kushal Shah

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