Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2025 (6) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....my, the Directors of the Appellant company for the services rendered by them to their company. Therefore, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice No.29/2014 AC(ST) dated 14.10.2014, wherein the Department alleged that the Appellants contravened the provisions of Section 68 of Finance Act 1994, read with Rule 2(1)(d)(i)(EE) and Rule 6 of Service tax Rules, 1994 and also Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 inasmuch as they failed to pay appropriate service tax under the reverse charge on the services rendered by the Directors of the company and received by the Appellant during the period from 07.08.2012 to 31.03.2014. 2.2 In terms of the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the Appellants were called upon to show cause as to why: - i. Service Tax of Rs.4,67.208 (Service Tax Rs.4,53,600/- + Education Cess - Rs.9,072/+SHE Cess - Rs.4,536/-) should not be demanded from them under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. ii. Interest at the applicable rates on the amount at (i) above should not be demanded from them under Section 75 of the Act and iii. Penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.4 In response to the Show Cause Notice, the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or executive director and as long as there is employer-employee relation, the mode of payment will not alter the nature of service. v. that all the three Directors of the company were appointed as Executive Directors of the company by way of Extra Ordinary General Meeting on such salary and other perquisites, which are equivalent and on par with other employees of the company. The Executive Directors were delegated with the work of managing the day-to-day affairs of the company and they are not giving any advice/consultancy to the management, in order to term them as Service providers to levy service tax. vi. that when there is employee-employer relationship, then there is no service tax. Once, the company establishes that there is an employee and employer relationship between the Managing Director and the Company, then any mode of payments by way of commission, stock options, performance related bonus, etc., will not alter the nature of the service. vii. that CBE&C, vide letter No. 324/Comm.(ST)/2008, dated 1-12-2008 has clarified that commission paid by a company to its directors (even if linked with performance or with financial results of the company) is nothing but remun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uthority has come to the conclusion that services provided by the Directors to the Appellant are excluded for charging service tax and dropped the proceedings. The Department filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the order has not clearly discussed about the employer and employee relationship of the Managing Director of the Company and in the Negative List regime of taxation, services provided or agreed to be provided by the Director of a company is made taxable w.e.f. 07.08.2012. Thus, the main ground raised for filing an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the services rendered by the Directors of the Appellant will amount to services as defined under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 and does not qualify as a provision of service by an employer to the employee company in the course of employment to be included in the exclusion clause (6) to Section 65B(44) of the finance Act, 1994 and salary paid to the Directors shall be the 'consideration' in money and being treated as value as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the services rendered by the Directors to the Appellant. 8. The provision of Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r conducting or organising a chit in any manner.] Explanation 3.- For the purposes of this Chapter,- (a) an unincorporated association or a body of persons, as the case may be, and a member thereof shall be treated as distinct persons; (b) an establishment of a person in the taxable territory and any of his other establishment in a non-taxable territory shall be treated as establishments of distinct persons. Explanation 4.- A person carrying on a business through a branch or agency or representational office in any territory shall be treated as having an establishment in that territory;" 9. It is not disputed in this case that the remuneration paid to the Directors was subjected to TDS under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act. In this connection, we refer to the Board Circular No. 115/09/2009-ST dated 31.07.2009 which is binding on the Authorities, and which reads as given below: - ".... 3. In view of the above, it is clarified that remunerations paid to Managing Director/Directors of companies whether whole-time or independent when being compensated for their performance as Managing Director/Directors would not be liable to service tax. ..... ...." 10. The Appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant along with its reply, by way of resolutions passed by the Board of Directors in accordance with the Companies Act which stated inter-alia that the directors concerned in the notice have been appointed as whole time directors and will be entitled to a salary as may be fixed from time to time. He has also ignored the Form 16 issued as a Certificate under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for tax deducted at source on salary in respect of these directors that was adduced in evidence. 8) We find that this Tribunal in Maithan Alloys Ltd v. Commissioner of C.Ex & ST, Bolpur, 2020 (33) GST 228 (Tri-Kolkata) has held as under: "6. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that service tax has been duly paid on remuneration paid to directors who are not whole-time employee directors. The only dispute herein is for payment of remuneration to whole time directors, which is a fact on record. The provisions of Companies Act, 2013, contained in Section 2(94), duly defines 'whole-time director' to include a director in the whole-time employment of the company. A whole-time director refers to a director who has been in employment of the company on a full-time basis and is also e....