| Headnote |
Constitution of India: Art.32 – Writ petition alleging violationof Art.14 and impugning the definition of ‘goods’ under s.2(52) ofthe Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 – Maintainability of –Held: Maintainable – Writ petition alleging violation of Art.14specially with respect to a parliamentary Act can be entertainedunder Art.32.Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: s.2(52) – Whetherthe inclusion of actionable claim in the definition of goods as givenin s.2(52) of the Act, 2017 is contrary to the legal meaning of goodsand unconstitutional – Held: Art.366(12) defines goods to includeall materials, commodities, and articles – Definition of goods asoccurring in Art.366(12) is inclusive definition and does notspecifically exclude actionable claim from its definition – Wheneverinclusive definition is given of an expression, it always intends toenlarge the meaning of words or phrases, used in the definition –The definition of goods as contained in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930in s.2(7) is every kind of movable property other than actionableclaims and money; whereas definition of goods in s.2(52) in theAct, 2017 is every kind of movable property other than money andsecurities “but includes actionable claim” – Thus, the Constitutionframers were aware of the definition of goods as occurring in theSale of Goods Act, 1930 when the Constitution was enforced – Byproviding an inclusive definition of goods in Art.366(12), theConstitution framers never intended to give any restrictive meaningto the word “goods” – Thus, the definition of goods under s.2(52)of the Act, 2017 does not violate any constitutional provision nor itis in conflict with the definition of goods given under Art.366(12) –Art.366 clause (12) contains an inclusive definition and thedefinition given in s.2(52) of Act, 2017 is not in conflict withdefinition given in Art.366(12) – The Parliament by the Constitution(One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 inserted Art.246A,a special provision with respect to goods and services tax – Art.246Abegins with non obstante clause, that is, “Notwithstanding anythingcontained in Arts.246 and 254”, which confers very wide power tomake laws – The power to make laws as conferred by Art.246Afully empowers the Parliament to make laws with respect to goodsand services tax and expansive definition of goods given in s.2(52)cannot be said to be not in accord with the constitutional provisions.Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017:Whether theConstitution Bench in Sunrise Associates in paragraphs 33, 40, 43and 48 of the judgment has laid down as the proposition of law thatlottery is an actionable claim or the observations made in thejudgment were only an obiter dicta and not declaration of law –Held: It cannot be said that the question as to whether lottery is agoods or actionable claim had not arisen in the decision in SunriseAssociates –When an item was held to be covered by excludedcategory, the said conclusion could have been arisen only afterconsideration of the definition and the exclusionary clause – Thus,the submission for the petitioner that the observations of theConstitution Bench holding lottery as actionable claim was onlyobiter dicta and not binding is not correct – The Constitution Benchin Sunrise Associates categorically held that lottery is actionableclaim after due consideration which is ratio of the judgment.Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Art.14 – Whetherexclusion of lottery, betting and gambling from Item No.6 ScheduleIII of the Act, 2017 is hostile discrimination and violative of Art.14of the Constitution of India – Held: When Act, 2017 defines thegoods to include actionable claims and included only threecategories of actionable claims, i.e., lottery, betting and gamblingfor purposes of levy of GST, it cannot be said that there was norationale for including these three actionable claims for tax purposes– Regulation including taxation in one or other form on the activitiesnamely lottery, betting and gambling has been in existence sinceseveral decades – When the parliament has included these threefor purpose of imposing GST and not taxed other actionable claims,it cannot be said that there was no rationale or reason for taxingthe three and leaving others – Constitution of India – Art.14.Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: s.15 – Whetherwhile determining the face value of the lottery tickets for levy ofGST, prize money is to be excluded for purposes of levy of GST –Held: The value of taxable supply is a matter of statutory regulationand when the value is to be transaction value which is to bedetermined as per s.15, it is not permissible to compute the value oftaxable supply by excluding prize which has been contemplated inthe statutory scheme – Central Goods and Services Tax Rules –r.31A.Interpretation of statutes: Whenever inclusive definition isgiven of an expression it is intended to enlarge the meaning of wordsor phrases, used in the definition – Central Goods and ServicesTax, 2017.Judicial review: Taxation policy – With regard to taxing policyof the legislature, the Courts have very limited role to play. |
