Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
GST cannot be collected on a penalty imposed on an employee for...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationships.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
GST cannot be collected on a penalty imposed on an employee for stock shortage merely because an employment relationship exists. Paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II to the CGST Act applies to agreements connected with a supply of services. A stock-shortage penalty arising from the employer-employee relationship is not, without more, consideration for a supply of services. Accordingly, that provision does not authorise GST on such recovery. The de novo enquiry concerning the collection was sustained, while the intra-court appeal was dismissed.
GST cannot be collected on a penalty imposed on an employee for stock shortage merely because an employment relationship exists. Paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II to the CGST Act applies to agreements connected with a supply of services. A stock-shortage penalty arising from the employer-employee relationship is not, without more, consideration for a supply of services. Accordingly, that provision does not authorise GST on such recovery. The de novo enquiry concerning the collection was sustained, while the intra-court appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.