Back
Rules GST Cannot Be Levied on Penalty for TASMAC Employee Shortage
In a significant ruling, the held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) cannot be imposed on a penalty levied on an employee for a stock shortage, clarifying the legal distinction between an and a under GST law.
Background of the Case
The case involved a supervisor of who was penalized ₹1,41,435 for a shortage of liquor stock at Shop No. 6547 in Kiranur, Pudukkottai District. The penalty arose after the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown on , forced an abrupt closure of the shop at 6 p.m., preventing the supervisor from completing normal closing formalities such as stock verification and account remittance. TASMAC not only imposed the penalty but also collected GST and interest on the amount.
The employee challenged the levy before the High Court, and a single judge directed TASMAC to conduct a specifically regarding the collection of GST. TASMAC appealed this order to a division bench.
Arguments and Legal Framework
TASMAC argued that under , read with , the penalty constituted a "supply" of services. Paragraph 5(e) covers agreements involving an obligation to refrain from an act, tolerate an act or situation, or do an act. According to TASMAC, this provision allowed them to collect GST on the penalty.
Court's Legal Analysis
The division bench, comprising Justices M. Dhandapani and N. Dilip Kumar, firmly rejected this argument. The court emphasized that the relationship between TASMAC and the supervisor was that of employer and employee, not that of a supplier and recipient of goods or services. The bench held that must be understood in the context of a , and a penalty for stock shortage during employment duties could not be treated as such.
Key Observations
The court made the following pivotal observation:
"The penalty imposed upon the private respondent is in respect of an alleged shortage of stock while discharging his duties as an employee of the appellant. The relationship between the appellant and the private respondent is one of employer and employee and not one of supplier and recipient of goods or services."
Further clarifying the legal position, the bench stated:
"The imposition of penalty upon the private respondent for the alleged shortage of stock cannot, by itself, be construed as a supply of service so as to attract the provisions of , read with . The said provision cannot be invoked merely for the purpose of collecting GST on the penalty imposed upon an employee in the course of an ."
Court's Decision
Based on this reasoning, the division bench found no error in the single judge's order and dismissed TASMAC's with . The ruling upholds the direction for a fresh enquiry regarding the GST component of the penalty, marking a clear boundary for the application of GST law to employer-employee relationships.
