Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan*, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has held that while determining the taxable value of lottery the prize money is not to be excluded for the purpose of levy of GST.

The Court explained that for determining the value of the lottery, there is statutory provision contained in Section 15 read with Rule 31A. Section 15 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by sub-section (2) provides what shall be included in the value of supply. What can be included in the value is enumerated in sub-clause (a) to (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 15. Further, subsection (3) of Section 15 provides that what shall not be included in the value of the supply.

“What is the value of taxable supply is subject to the statutory provision which clearly regulates, which provision has to be given its full effect and something which is not required to be excluded in the value of taxable supply cannot be added by judicial interpretation.”

Further, Rule 31A as noted above, sub-rule (2) as amended clearly provides that value of supply shall be deemed to be 100/128 of the face value of ticket or of the prize as notified in the Official Gazette by the Organising State, whichever is higher.

The Court said that the value of taxable supply is a matter of statutory regulation and when the value is to be transaction value which is to be determined as per Section 15 it is not permissible to compute the value of taxable supply by excluding prize which has been contemplated in the statutory scheme. It was hence, held that

“When prize paid by the distributor/agent is not contemplated to be excluded from the value of taxable supply, we are not persuaded to accept the submission of the petitioner that prize money should be excluded for computing the taxable value of supply.”

[Skill Lotto Solutions v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 990, decided on 03.12.2020]


*Justice Ashok Bhushan has penned this judgment

For petitioner: Senior Advocate Ravindra Shrivastava,

For Union of India: Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee

For Intervenor: Senior Advocate C.A. Sundaram

Also read: Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of imposition of GST on lotteries, betting and gambling 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has upheld the constitutionality of imposition of GST on lotteries, betting and gambling.

Here are the key takeaways from the judgment: 

Whether the inclusion of actionable claim in the definition of goods as given in Section 2(52) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is contrary to the legal meaning of goods and unconstitutional?

The inclusion of actionable claim in definition “goods” as given in Section 2(52) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is not contrary to the legal meaning of goods nor it is in conflict with the definition of goods given under Article 366(12).

“The Constitution framers were well aware of the definition of goods as occurring in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 when the Constitution was enforced. By providing an inclusive definition of goods in Article 366(12), the Constitution framers never intended to give any restrictive meaning of goods.”

Parliament by the  Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 inserted Article 246A, a special provision with respect to goods and services tax in which special power has to be liberally construed empowering the Parliament to make laws with respect to goods and services tax. Article 246A begins with non obstante clause that is “Notwithstanding anything contained in Articles 246 and 254”, which confers very wide power to make laws. When the Parliament has been conferred power to make law with respect to goods and services, the legislative power of the Parliament is plenary.

“The power to make laws as conferred by Article 246A fully empowers the Parliament to make laws with respect to goods and services tax and expansive definition of goods given in Section 2(52) cannot be said to be not in accord with the constitutional provisions.”

Whether the Constitution Bench’s observation ‘lottery is an actionable claim’ in Sunrise Associates v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2006) 5 SCC 603 a law or obiter dicta?

The definition of goods in Section 2(j) as noticed by the Constitution Bench states that ‘goods’ means all kinds of movable property (other than newspaper, actionable claims, stocks, shares and securities). The exclusion of the actionable claims from the goods as enumerated in the definition is also a part of the definition.

“If a particular item is covered by exclusion it is obvious that it does not fall in the definition of the goods. When the Constitution Bench came to the conclusion that the lottery is an actionable claim it was considering the definition of 2(j) itself and what has been held by the Constitution Bench cannot be held to be obiter dicta.”

The Constitution Bench in Sunrise Associates has categorically held that lottery is actionable claim after due consideration which is ratio of the judgment. The expansion of definition of goods under Section 2(52) of Act, 2017 by including actionable claim is in the line with the Constitution Bench pronouncement in Sunrise Associates and no exception can be taken to the definition of the goods as occurring in Section 2(52).

Whether exclusion of lottery, betting and gambling from Item No.6 Schedule III of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is hostile discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

The Constitution Bench in State of Bombay Vs. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, AIR 1957 SC 699 has clearly stated that Constitution makers who set up an ideal welfare State have never intended to elevate betting and gambling on the level of country’s trade or business or commerce.

Lottery, betting and gambling are well known concepts and have been in practice in this country since before independence and were regulated and taxed by different legislations. When Act, 2017 defined the goods to include actionable claims and included only three categories of actionable claims, i.e., lottery, betting and gambling for purposes of levy of GST, it cannot be said that there was no rationale for including these three actionable claims for tax purposes.

“It is a duty of the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.”

Hence, there is no violation of Article 14 in Item No. 6 of Schedule III of the Act, 2017.

Whether while determining the face value of the lottery tickets for levy of GST, prize money is to be excluded? 

Read here 

[Skill Lotto Solutions v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 990, decided on 03.12.2020]


*Justice Ashok Bhushan has penned this judgment

For petitioner: Senior Advocate Ravindra Shrivastava,

For Union of India: Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee

For Intervenor: Senior Advocate C.A. Sundaram

 

Also read: GST on lotteries| Prize money not to be excluded for computing the taxable value of supply, holds SC

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A.S. Chandurkar, J., clarified that a contract whereby an advocate asks for the fee based on the outcome of the arbitration proceedings, wherein he acted in the capacity of a “counsel” for the party and did not appear as an “advocate”, is valid.

It is pertinent to note that such contracts (generally called a contract for a contingent fee) are held to be opposed to public policy and hence void under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 where such contract is entered into by an Advocate with his client.

In the present case, the respondent was a partnership firm engaged in providing consultancy services in arbitration matters. They entered into an agreement with the appellant as per which, they were to represent the appellant in an arbitration proceeding. As per the terms of the agreement, the respondent would be entitled to 1% of the award amount upto Rs 1 crore, and 1.5% thereof over Rs 1 crore. Based on the result of the arbitration proceedings, the respondent raised a claim for an amount of over Rs 1.28 crores. However, the appellant did not pay the amount and the respondent filed a recovery suit which was allowed by the trial court.

An important question before the High Court was — whether the agreement was hit by the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872?

D.V. Chavan, Advocate appearing for the appellant urged that the partner of the respondent firm who appeared in the arbitration proceeding was a qualified advocate, and thus he was precluded from seeking remuneration on the basis of the outcome of the proceedings in which he represented the appellant. Per contra, Yash Maheshwari, Advocate representing the respondent submitted that the partner concerned of the respondent firm was not a registered advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Court discussed the decision of ‘G’, a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, In re, AIR 1954 SC 557 and noted that in Paragraph 11 of that case, the Supreme Court observed that there was nothing morally wrong, nothing to shock the conscience, nothing against public policy and public morals in such a transaction “per se” when a legal practitioner is not concerned. Also, such agreements are legally enforceable when entered into between third parties.

Noting that the “aforesaid observations” though in the passing are in the nature of obiter dicta and hence binding on this Court.”, the High Court observed, “The aforesaid observations are clear that with regard to such an agreement in which a legal practitioner is not involved, the same would be legally enforceable. It is thus clear that an agreement of the aforesaid nature if entered into by an Advocate would be against public policy and the same may not be so when third parties are involved.”

As per the Court, there was no evidence to indicate that the partner of the respondent firm acted as an “Advocate while representing the appellant; in fact, he represented them only as their counsel, and the representation before the arbitrator could not be said to be a representation before the Court. It was held: “Mere fact that the said partner happened to be a law graduate by itself would not be sufficient to conclude that the agreement entered into by him for being entitled to remuneration based on the outcome of the arbitration proceedings would render that agreement contrary and opposed to public policy and hence void under Section 23 of the Act of 1872.”

On such view of the matter, along with the decision on other points which also went against the appellant, the Court dismissed the present appeal and confirmed the decree passed by the trial court. [Jayaswal Ashoka Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Pansare Lawad Sallagar, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 578, decided on 07-03-2019]