Recent Advance Ruling

There is a recent Advance rule ng dated 20/02/2020 of Rajasthan. Saying when a company pays salary to a director Gst shall be levied. But according to schedule 3 if there is employer and employee relationship, no GST shall be levied.
Is this advance ruling correct or
Is that director doesn't come under employer employee relationship for a company. If yes , then what constitutes employer employee relationship?
Replies (8)
Quick Summary
A recent Advance Ruling from Rajasthan suggests that GST is applicable on salaries paid to company directors. However, this contradicts Schedule III, which exempts services provided under an employer-employee relationship. The discussion highlights the absurdity of this ruling, particularly for whole-time directors, and questions whether GST applies to all director services or only those rendered in their capacity as directors.

If condition for Deducting TDS u/s 192 of income Tax except minimum limit for non tds in this section than You not need Apply GST on such payment and covered under scope of schedule 3
@ Mr Rajkumar Patel.,

Can You elaborate with some more details for Your reply please...?!
Rajasthan -Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/19-20/33
Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling & Clay craft Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) .

The ruling was : Consideration paid to director (whole time) by the applicant company attracts GST under the RCM & cover Under Notification 13/2017 CT (R)

The Ruling is absolutely absurd & Not according to ACT , means the RCM attracts when the consideration paid to Sitting Director not on whole time Director. Moreover the Ruling is applicable only to Applicant Company & applicant will definitely challenge vires of such Notification/ruling to AAAR.

In fact there is complete writeup/article on remuneration paid to director By Taxman , so go through the same which says it's not cover under GST
Yes... I'm also the same view.


Can You define the difference between "Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling & Clay craft Pvt Ltd
and
"The Authority on Advance Ruling in Karnataka & Alcon Consulting Engineers (I) pvt Ltd"...
Dear Mr Raja Ji
The difference in both is only the AAR ruling in regard to Clay Craft Pvt ltd is the latest one.
On my opinion, if director provides services in capacity other than directorship in company than GST is attracted on payment for such services.... e.g. payment of sitting fees, professional services like Technical services, Agent service
Dear Rajkumar
Yes you are correct , thats what we are saying that above ruling is not correct
“This ruling needs to be clarified by government, otherwise, lower authorities may take legally incorrect view creating havoc in the business community.”

The Question still exists:

Whether all the services provided by the director shall be covered by the RCM provisions or RCM is only restricted to the services provided by a director in the capacity of a director?

Leave a Reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Company
ARTICLESHIP 18 September 2026
Industrial Trainee

Twenty Point Nine Five Ventures Private Limited

Noida

CA Inter

View Details
Company
Featured 11 September 2026
Audit Executive

RBSM Corporate Advisors Private Limited

Pune

CA

View Details
Company
08 October 2026
Accounts and Tax Associate

POOJA R TELI & CO

Pune

CA Inter

View Details
Company
08 October 2026
Account Executive

Elite Taxation

New Delhi

CA Foundation

View Details
Company
Featured 03 October 2026
Accountant

A P Lodha and Associates

Jalna

B.Com

View Details
Company
18 September 2026
Accounts & Finance Specialist

ULTRA CHEMICAL WORKS

Thane

CA Final

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 01 October 2026
Articled Assistant

KPSN & Associates LLP

Chennai

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 07 October 2026
Article Assistant

Malhotra Rajesh & Associates

New Delhi

B.Com

View Details