Director/chairman remuneration treated as employee salary, not taxable service under RCM; service tax demand set aside

Remuneration paid to directors/chairman was examined to determine whether it constituted "salary" in an employer-employee relationship, excluded from "service" under s. 65B(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, or consideration for a taxable service under RCM. As the payments were subjected to TDS under s. 192 of the Income-tax Act and the directors functioned as employees, the Tribunal held the amounts were salary and not exigible to service tax; the demand under RCM was set aside. Since RCM under Notif. 30/2012-ST applies only where a taxable service is received, and none existed, RCM was held inapplicable; the demand failed. Appeal allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether amounts paid to whole-time directors/chairman during the relevant period constituted "salary" paid in the course of employment and hence fell within the exclusion in Section 65B(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, or whether they were consideration for taxable services rendered in an independent capacity.

(ii) If the payments were excluded as "salary", whether the company could nevertheless be made liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism under Section 68(2) read with Rule 2(1)(d)(i)(EE) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Notification No. 30/2012-ST (as amended).

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Characterisation of directors' remuneration-salary in employment vs. taxable consideration

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined the exclusion in Section 65B(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, which excludes from "service" the provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to employment.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court applied a "substance over form" approach to determine whether the relationship was one of employment (contract of service) or independent service (contract for service). It treated the following documents collectively as creating a "strong and coherent inference" of employer-employee relationship: appointment/re-appointment letters; salary fixed through AGM resolution; accounting treatment as "Director's Salary" and classification under "Salaries & Wages" in audited financial statements; deduction of TDS under Section 192 and issuance of Form-16; and statutory audit certificates and TDS returns. The Court held that mere terminology ("salary" vs "remuneration") was not decisive where the contractual/statutory treatment supported employment. The Court also treated the departmental circular relied upon by the appellant as materially relevant to the analysis and noted that failure to address it was significant.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the directors functioned as whole-time employees performing day-to-day managerial/operational functions; the remuneration paid to them was "salary" within an employer-employee relationship; and the payments were therefore excluded from the ambit of taxable "service" under Section 65B(44)(b). Consequently, the service tax demand on such payments could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Applicability of Reverse Charge Mechanism where payment is "salary" excluded from "service"

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court considered Section 68(2), Rule 2(1)(d)(i)(EE), and Notification No. 30/2012-ST (as amended), but only in conjunction with the foundational requirement that there must first be a taxable service.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that reverse charge liability arises only upon receipt of a taxable service. Since the payments were held to be salary paid in the course of employment (and hence not a taxable service), Notification No. 30/2012-ST and the reverse charge provisions could not be mechanically applied without first establishing the existence of a taxable service. The Court found the Revenue's approach-invoking reverse charge without overcoming the statutory exclusion-to be contrary to the statutory scheme.

Conclusions: With no taxable service established, the reverse charge mechanism was held inapplicable; the confirmed demand failed on merits and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits. The Court expressly treated questions relating to natural justice, limitation, interest, and penalty as academic in view of the decision on merits and refrained from deciding them.

---