2019 (8) TMI 600 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax on perquisite paid to MD - scope of 'service' - remuneration paid in excess of the salary reflected as per Form 16 - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT - There is force in that Appellants claim that only due to the fact that taxable income is shown in Form 16, it cannot be said that other perquisites are not part of remuneration to the employee and are paid for consultation etc. rendered by him - No case is made out by the department that such remuneration, other than salary paid to him, was not for the routine work he performs as Managing Director, but was for the consultation he provides. Therefore, the instant case is squarely covered by the exclusion contained under Section 65(44) (b) of Finance Act, 1994. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay Service Tax on remuneration paid to director under Reverse Charge Mechanism.
2. Exemption of service tax on salary paid to Managing Director.
3. Interpretation of Section 65(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding service provided by an employee to the employer.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the confirmation of Service Tax liability on remuneration paid to the director under Reverse Charge Mechanism. The Appellants argued that the amount paid to the Managing Director as salary is exempt from Service Tax under Section 65(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. They contended that the Managing Director had an employee-employer relationship with the company, and the remuneration was for routine management functions. The Appellants also cited circulars and case laws to support their argument. The lower authorities had confirmed the duty demanded, but the Appellants claimed that the employer-employee relationship was overlooked.

2. The Tribunal examined the Memorandum of Articles of Association, board resolutions, and company filings which showed that the Managing Director was appointed and paid salary and perquisites as per the company's documents. The Tribunal found that the remuneration paid, including perquisites, was for the routine work performed by the Managing Director and not for consultation services. Relying on Section 65(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal held that the exclusion for service provided by an employee to the employer applied in this case. The Tribunal also referenced relevant case law to support its decision, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

3. The interpretation of Section 65(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 was crucial in determining the applicability of Service Tax on the remuneration paid to the Managing Director. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of "service" under the Act and concluded that the exclusion under Section 65(44)(b) applied to the case at hand, as the remuneration was for services provided by the Managing Director as an employee to the employer. By considering the company's documents, board resolutions, and relevant legal principles, the Tribunal established that the remuneration fell within the exemption provided by the Act, leading to the setting aside of the Service Tax liability.