<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Employer-employee exclusion and lack of independent evidence defeated service tax demands on director remuneration</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100228</link>
    <description>Remuneration paid to whole-time directors was treated as outside the service tax net because the employment agreements, express employer-employee clauses, TDS under section 192, and Form 16 supported an employee relationship; variable or profit-linked pay did not change that character, so the demand, interest and penalties on that remuneration failed. Remuneration paid to non-whole-time directors was also not taxable on the facts shown, because the appellant had produced ST-3 returns indicating tax was discharged by its Bhubaneswar office, the Revenue did not rebut that evidence, and no centralized registration existed to justify a demand from the Salem office. Derivative demands based on an earlier set-aside notice, without independent evidence, could not survive, so the common orders were set aside in entirety.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904299" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Employer-employee exclusion and lack of independent evidence defeated service tax demands on director remuneration</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100228</link>
      <description>Remuneration paid to whole-time directors was treated as outside the service tax net because the employment agreements, express employer-employee clauses, TDS under section 192, and Form 16 supported an employee relationship; variable or profit-linked pay did not change that character, so the demand, interest and penalties on that remuneration failed. Remuneration paid to non-whole-time directors was also not taxable on the facts shown, because the appellant had produced ST-3 returns indicating tax was discharged by its Bhubaneswar office, the Revenue did not rebut that evidence, and no centralized registration existed to justify a demand from the Salem office. Derivative demands based on an earlier set-aside notice, without independent evidence, could not survive, so the common orders were set aside in entirety.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>