Payments to full-time directors are salary, not taxable under Management Consultancy Service per Section 65(105)(zzzz)

The CESTAT Chennai held that payments made to a full-time director are considered salary and not subject to service tax under Management Consultancy Service. Despite the appellant failing to produce documentary evidence such as salary bills or Form-16, the tribunal accepted the advocate's assertion that the payment was part of the director's salary. The appellant had already paid the demanded service tax and interest within 30 days of the show cause notice. Following precedent from earlier CESTAT decisions, the tribunal ruled that no service tax liability arose on remuneration paid to whole-time directors, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the consideration paid to a whole-time director constitutes salary or is liable to service tax as Management Consultancy Service.Whether payments made to directors, including those termed as commissions, fall within the scope of Business Auxiliary Services for service tax purposes.Whether extended period of limitation and penalty under Section 78 are sustainable in absence of allegation of suppression or fraud.Whether imposition of equal penalty is justified when service tax demand along with interest is paid within 30 days of Show Cause Notice.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The consideration paid to a whole-time director is "remuneration" pursuant to an employer-employee relationship and not liable to service tax under Management Consultancy Services; "demand of service tax on remuneration paid to whole-time directors cannot be sustained."Payments made by companies to Managing Directors/Directors (whole-time or independent) are not chargeable under 'Management Consultancy service' as these directors "perform management function and they do not perform consultancy or advisory function."Amounts paid to directors, even if termed as commissions, are not within the scope of Business Auxiliary Service and hence not liable to service tax under that category.Extended period of limitation and penalty under Section 78 are not sustainable in absence of any "allegation of suppression and fraud" in the Show Cause Notice.Imposition of equal penalty is not correct where the appellant has paid service tax demand with interest within 30 days from the date of Show Cause Notice.Where the Income Tax Department treats payments to directors as salary and deducts tax under Section 192, the Service Tax Department cannot treat the same payments as taxable consultancy fees; "the same department of Government of India cannot take different stand on the amount paid to the very same person and treat it differently."

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the legal framework established by the Central Excise Tariff Act, the Finance Act relating to service tax, and relevant provisions of the Companies Act defining whole-time directors as employees and key managerial personnel.Board's Circular No.115/09/2009-ST clarified that payments to directors for management functions are not consultancy services and thus not taxable under Management Consultancy Service.Precedents from Tribunal decisions (Maithan Alloys Ltd., Rent Works India Pvt. Ltd., PCM Cement Concrete Pvt. Ltd.) were followed, establishing that remuneration to whole-time directors is akin to salary and not subject to service tax.The principle of consistency within branches of the Ministry of Finance was emphasized, preventing contradictory treatment of the same payment by Income Tax and Service Tax authorities.The absence of documentary evidence such as salary bills, Form-16, or Income Tax returns initially complicated the matter; however, subsequent production of evidence and the director's status confirmed the employer-employee relationship.The Court rejected the invocation of extended period and penalty provisions due to lack of allegations of suppression or fraud, consistent with statutory requirements under Section 78.

---