The food delivery boy is only an employee of the company and not its owner legally. If the company flouts tax laws, the employee is in no way legally liable for the employer's actions.

The delivery agent does not receive penalties or punishment for corporate-level tax evasion or non-compliance committed by the company.

Under Section 137 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act in India, for example, only individuals who direct, control, or willfully consent to company tax fraud (directors, managers, or officers) are held criminally or financially liable.

A delivery agent simply accepting orders via an app and fulfilling them has no legal knowledge of whether the parent company paid its GST or renewed its operational licenses. Therefore, law enforcement or tax authorities cannot charge the worker for the employer's fraud.

If the company fails to pay GST or lacks corporate licenses, the government targets the owners, executive management, and corporate bank accounts—not the gig workers delivering the food.

1) A company is a distinct legal person. Only the individuals who manage its operations (owners, directors, and compliance officers) are responsible for its statutory filings.

2)  Delivery personnel do not manage the accounting, tax collecting, or financial operations of the business.

3)  Most delivery drivers register as independent contractors. They are only responsible for paying personal income tax on their individual earnings, not the corporate Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected by the platform.

Sir/Madam,

Your query seems to by hypothetical and it is not clear as to from which angle you need the legal advice. The legal advice must be sought on real problem and not the hypothetic one. However, it is suggested that a food delivery company/home delivery company is required to have requisite certifications/license from all concerned such as hygiene, food safety, packaging, fire, labour laws compliance for workers, as required. Non-following of the same may lead to closure of the company followed by prosecution of the owner/director. The delieveryman of the said company is also likely to be prosecuted untill and unless he proves that his work with the company was bona fide.     

In general, where a food delivery or home delivery company is found guilty of tax or GST evasion, or of failing to obtain or comply with mandatory licences and statutory requirements, the primary liability rests upon the company and the persons responsible for its management and compliance, such as the owner, directors, partners, or other persons in charge of its affairs.

A delivery person or delivery executive would not ordinarily be liable or punished merely because he is an employee or agent of the company. Personal liability may arise only where there is evidence that the delivery person knowingly participated in, aided, abetted, or was directly involved in the unlawful act, fraud, tax evasion, or other statutory violation.

Therefore, mere employment and performance of delivery duties do not, by themselves, attract criminal or statutory liability for the company's non-compliance.

a delivery person is not responsible for the company’s GST, tax or licence violations just because he works for that company...

The company and the persons responsible for its compliance are normally liable....

The delivery person can be held responsible only if he knowingly took part in the offence or helped in committing it, or if a specific law makes him liable...

So, if he is only doing his normal delivery job and has no role in the company’s tax or licence matters, he should normally not be punished for the company’s violations.

Ordinarily, no. A deliveryman/ordinary employee of a food-delivery or home-delivery company does not automatically become personally liable merely because the company failed to pay GST, income tax, or comply with a statutory licence.

The liability generally depends upon the nature of the particular violation and the person’s role in the company.

For GST specifically, Section 137 of the CGST Act deals with offences by companies. It can extend criminal liability to persons who were, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business. It can also cover directors, managers, secretaries or other officers where the offence is attributable to their consent, connivance or negligence. At the same time, the provision contains a defence where the person establishes that the offence occurred without his knowledge or that he exercised due diligence. 

Therefore, a delivery executive who merely collects food from restaurants and delivers it to customers, without any role in the company’s taxation, accounts, GST filings, management or licensing, would ordinarily not be prosecuted merely because the company failed to pay GST.

The position can change if the deliveryman himself was involved in the offence—for example, knowingly participating in fraudulent invoices, fake transactions, clandestine sales, suppression of taxable transactions or some other specific statutory offence. In that situation, liability would arise from his own conduct, not simply from being an employee.

There is also an important distinction between tax liability/penalty against the company and criminal prosecution. A GST department may recover tax, interest and applicable penalties from the taxable person without that automatically resulting in criminal liability for every employee.

Similarly, if the issue concerns a food/business licence, the applicable statute must be examined separately. Different statutes have different provisions identifying who within a company can be prosecuted. The mere fact that someone is designated as a “deliveryman” is therefore not enough to make him personally liable.

In short, company’s GST/tax default ≠ automatic liability of every employee. The authorities would have to establish the deliveryman’s specific statutory responsibility or involvement before personal criminal liability could ordinarily arise.

Disclaimer: This is general legal information based on the facts stated in the question and should not be treated as a formal legal opinion or legal advice. The exact position can differ depending upon the company structure, nature of the alleged default and the specific tax/licensing statute involved.

You won't automatically be considered a manager or co-owner just because you are the owner's son. Under Indian corporate and labor law, your designation and legal liabilities are defined by your official employment contract, actual job responsibilities, and payroll records—not your family relationship.

If your father fails to pay GST or income tax, tax authorities (such as the Income Tax Department or GST Department) target the legal owners, partners, or directors—not junior staff or delivery drivers.

As long as your father is the owner and proprietor of the business, he alone is legally liable for paying taxes, and NOT you, whether you are his manager or delivery boy. Don't worry unnecessarily.

No delivery man has no liability 

Dear Client,

Usually, no. When a food-delivery company fails to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) or other requirements, the company or persons legally responsible for the violation are normally liable and not an ordinary deliveryman.

Under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, liability may extend to a person who knowingly aids or abets a GST offence. 

Thus, a deliveryman who only delivers food as part of his employment would usually not be penalised for the company's GST default. However, if he knowingly and willingly participates in tax evasion, fake invoices, illegal transportation, etc., separate liability may arise.

Thank you for contacting us, if you have any further queries kindly do not hesitate to contact again. Thankyou.

Dear Imon,

No, merely being the son of the owner does not automatically make you a manager, director, person in charge, or otherwise personally liable for the company's tax/GST or licensing compliances.

If you join your father's company only as a deliveryman, your liability would ordinarily depend on your actual role and conduct. If the company fails to pay GST, obtain a required licence, or comply with other laws, the primary liability generally falls on the company and/or the persons legally responsible for its management and compliance.

However, the position can be different if you are formally appointed as a director, partner, manager, authorised signatory, or person responsible for the company's affairs, or if you personally participate in or assist in an offence, such as knowingly facilitating tax evasion or submitting false documents. In such circumstances, you could potentially face personal consequences depending on the applicable law.

Therefore, if you are genuinely working only as a deliveryman, your father's ownership of the company does not by itself make you personally liable for his company's tax or GST defaults.

That said, before joining, it would be prudent to ascertain the company's legal structure (proprietorship, partnership, LLP, private limited company, etc.) and ensure that you are not being appointed to any position carrying statutory responsibility merely because you are a family member.

Regards.

Based on established Indian law, you would generally not be personally liable for any GST or tax violations committed by your father's company, TipTop, solely because you work as a deliveryman or because you are his son.

The Supreme Court of India has clearly ruled that employees cannot be held liable for their employer's GST evasion under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act. The Court held that employees are not "taxable persons" under GST law and that vicarious liability cannot be automatically applied to them for their employer's actions. You would only be at risk if you were directly responsible for the offence and personally benefited from the tax evasion—which is unlikely in your role as a deliveryman.

The law specifically targets persons "in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of business", or directors, managers, and other officers where the offence involves their consent or negligence. As a deliveryman, you do not fall into any of these categories. Being the owner's son does not automatically make you a manager or "Key Managerial Personnel"—you are only considered such if you are formally appointed to a role like CEO, Managing Director, or Company Secretary.

Therefore, as a deliveryman simply performing your duties, you are not legally responsible for your father's company's tax compliance. The only exception would be if your identity (like your PAN) is fraudulently misused to create fake transactions, which is a separate issue of identity theft.

Dear Sir,

You are suggested to talk to talk to your father clearly regarding the formalities to be completed for runing the said company so that you are safe in future and without hassle the company shows you path of success.