Directors’ GST Liability of Bankrupt Company U/S 89 (Guide)

Historically, tax authorities have faced challenges in recovering overdue taxes from defaulters. These difficulties are exacerbated when a company declares bankruptcy, becomes financially insolvent or becomes untraceable. It’s essential to consider that in the context of GST, the funds owed to the government by a company may have already been collected from the end consumer.

Consequently, there should be no exemption from legal consequences for any significant negligence or wrongdoing regarding the company’s financial matters.

What GST Section 89 Says?

Section 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 addresses the joint and several personal liabilities of Directors in a Private Company when tax, interest, or penalties cannot be retrieved. Under this provision, Directors must demonstrate that they are not responsible for the company’s tax defaults.

Important: Summary of Latest GST Changes Effective from 1st Oct

Furthermore, Section 89 includes a non-observant clause, which means that its regulations override any provisions in the Companies Act. Consequently, in the context of GST recovery, the concept of a corporation as a distinct legal entity, as outlined in the Companies Act, is significantly diminished.

Who is Responsible as per GST Law?

According to GST laws, the responsibility for recovering taxes is generally assigned to the entity making taxable supplies. Therefore, this liability should, in principle, be imposed on the entire company rather than on an individual based solely on their position as a Director, unless proven otherwise.

It is worth noting that there is no other provision that imposes liability on a Director regarding the tax obligations of a public company. In the absence of such a provision, can it be asserted that Directors bear no automatic responsibility for recovering the tax debts of a public company under GST laws?

Also Read: Simplify GST Liability on Director’s Remuneration Under RCM

It can reasonably be argued that any action taken by the Department to assign liability to a Director for recovering the debts of a public company would potentially violate the Constitution of India. Numerous legal judgments have emphasized that Directors cannot be held accountable for a company’s statutory dues in the absence of an explicit statutory provision and have underscored the principle of a company’s distinct legal existence.

However, in specific exceptional circumstances, the principle of a company’s distinct legal existence can be set aside through the application of the concept that the corporate veil may be lifted in certain tax cases involving evasion or fraud, as recognized by the courts over time.

The common law doctrine of piercing the corporate veil can be employed when a company attempts to evade its tax obligations under a statute. The esteemed Supreme Court has noted that the courts have the authority to disregard the corporate entity when it is utilized for tax evasion or to circumvent tax responsibilities.

GST Section 132 for Penalties

It’s important to highlight that Section 132 outlines penalties for various offences under GST, including situations where an individual collects tax but fails to remit it to the Government. Does this provide a loophole for the Department to potentially hold Directors accountable for the company’s defaults and subsequently penalize them?

In the authors’ view, this provision should not be exploited by the Department. If the Department does attempt to hold Directors liable for penalties under this provision, it becomes a question of whether the Directors can successfully defend themselves in tax recovery proceedings, especially when they were not involved in any of the offences.

Closure: In the absence of a specific statutory provision, Directors of a public company cannot be automatically held responsible. However, under certain exceptional circumstances, tax arrears of a company can be attributed to Directors if it can be demonstrated that they were responsible for the company’s operations and the non-payment of government dues.

The presence of certain indirect provisions to hold individuals accountable for offences should not be misused by the Department, as it could place Directors in a challenging position, requiring them to prove their innocence and lack of involvement in any wrongdoing.

Arpit Kulshrestha

Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous.

Recent Posts

No GST Returns Will Be Accepted If Filed More Than 3 Years Past Their Due Date

An advisory has been released by the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) which notifies…

6 hours ago

Delhi HC: Two Judgment Orders Against One SCN Cannot Be Accepted for the Same Period

It was cited by the Delhi HC that the two adjudication orders against one SCN…

8 hours ago

CBDT Allows Electronic Filing of Forms 3CEDA and 3C-O Via Notification No. 5/2024

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in an update for the taxpayers via the…

9 hours ago

October 2024 Records the 2nd Highest GST Collection, Driven by Domestic Sales

In October, Gross GST collection surged to 9% to Rs 1.87 lakh crore, the second…

11 hours ago

UP AAR: GST Will Be Levied on the Installation of Electricity Distribution Systems by DISCOMs

Goods and Services Tax (GST) is to get paid on the procurement of materials and…

2 days ago

Bombay HC Quashes Rejection Order for Voluntary GST Cancellation Due to Lack of Stated Reasons

The Bombay High Court carried that as the revocation orders for the registration cancellation on…

3 days ago