News Update

Rajya Sabha also passes Citizenship Amendment BillCabinet nod for Agreement on Social Security between India and Brazil (See '')Cabinet okays funding of Delhi Metro's three Priority Corridors of Phase - IVCCEA approves extension of PM's Package for Horticulture in UTsCabinet nod for increase in authorised capital for IIFCL (See '')Cabinet okays 'Partial Credit Guarantee Scheme' for purchase of high-rated pooled assets by PSBs (See '')Cabinet approves IBC (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019 (See '')GST - GSTR-1 is declaration of tax liability and GSTR-3B is evidence of actual payment - Petitioner has filed GSTR-1 but not GSTR-3B - Revenue is simply pressing upon for actual payment - claim of petitioner that s.79 can be invoked only after invoking s. 78 of Act, is, therefore, erroneous:HCCBIC gives addl charge to JS NegiFraud by e-Commerce Companies - File FIR if they are not traceable: GovtIndustrial Corridors - Onus is on States to acquire land towards their equity: GoyalWTO General Council decides to extend moratorium on electronic transmissionsProfiteering - Additional benefit given to one recipient cannot be offset with the denial of benefit to another recipient as this is not spirit of law: NAASection 171 of CGST Act nowhere mentions that investigation should be done only for State where complaint is filed and not for other States: NAAKeyword is 'commensurate reduction' - amount of profiteering has to be calculated by keeping recipient at centre and, therefore, contention that amount of profiteering has to be calculated entity-wise is not correct interpretation of law: NAARule 133 of CGST Rules - Time period for Authority to pass order after receipt of report from DGAP has been increased to six months by notification 31/2019-CT: NAASC keen to appoint former SC Judge to probe into Hyderabad encounterCus - Once a review Committee has taken a decision of not filing appeal, they become functus officio , and such decision cannot be re-opened or revised by a new Committee: CESTATPSLVC48 carrying 9 customer satellites and earth observation satellite successfully lifts offAs net interest income exceeds interest expenses, there cannot be any disallowance of interest expenses if no interest expense is claimed in P&L A/c: ITATST - Assessee is engaged in marketing and promotion of pesticides/insecticide manufactured by their principal - services rendered by assessee as super distributor are agriculture extension services which are covered under negative list as per section 65B(4) of FA, 1994: CESTATClaim of deduction on interest expenditure merits being allowed to extent of interest income received from various parties: ITATIf bill of exchange found during search relates to AY 2005-06, then no addition pertaining to it can be made in AY 2006-07: ITATProvisions of Section 40A come into operation only when payment in cash, in single day, exceeds specified limit of twenty thousand: ITATIGST to States - The Revised GoMOcean Freight and GST- Are We Missing Something?GST - N K Singh favours design changeArms Amendment Bill - Govt to introduce bullets with serial numbers soon: MoSGovt Keen to trim Central Deputation quota for IPS as States show reluctance to release officers30 Cr vehicles plying on road - Steps being taken to promote e-Vehicles: GovtGST - Law Committee to hold two-day meet starting todayThere is no universal yardstick to estimate profit derived from bogus purchase: ITATGovt trying to further simplify export procedures: Puri
SC ruling in Calcutta Club - through the GST prism


OCTOBER 09, 2019

By Mr Nand Kishore, Partner, Mr Akash Deep, Principal Associate and Mr Rohit Arora, Associate, DSK Legal

RECENTLY, a larger bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors.v Calcutta Club Limited; Civil Appeal No. 4184/2009 and Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Service & Ors. v Ranchi Club Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 7497/2012 - 2019-TIOL-449-SC-ST-LB decided one of the most litigated issues relating to taxability of sale of goods/provisions of services by member's club to their members.

The contention of the member's club was that it acts as agents of its members and hence any supply of goods or services to the members would constitute sale of goods or rendition of services to self and hence no sales tax / VAT or service tax can be levied in respect of such activities. They relied upon the doctrine of mutuality which was propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of CTO v. Young Men's Indian Association, (1970) 1 SCC 462 ("Young Men's Indian Association").

The revenue, on the other hand, argued that doctrine of mutuality/agency/trust has been done away by 46th Constitutional Amendment whereby Article 366(29-A), which was inserted to deem supply of goods by member's clubs to its members for a price as sale of such goods for the purpose of levy of sales tax.

On the issue of services provided by member's club to its members, the Revenue argued that the doctrine of mutuality was restricted to cases pertaining to VAT and cannot be applied to service tax cases.

Decision by the Supreme Court

Ruling in case of sale of goods

Article 366(29A) was introduced by way of 46th Constitutional Amendment with the view to expand the scope of tax on sale in respect of certain specified activities involving supply of goods or supply of goods and services, which hitherto was held by the Supreme Court in various decision as not amounting to sale of goods.

Clause (e) to Article 366 (29A) reads as under:

"tax on the sale or purchase of goods includes a tax on the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration ."

The Supreme Court relied upon the 61 st Law Commission Report, which recommended the above amendment to the Constitution. The Report was of the view that the Constitution ought not to be amended so as to bring within the tax net member's clubs. Three reasons were given in the report, viz. a) the number of such clubs and associations would not be very large; b) taxation of such transactions might discourage the cooperative movement; and c) third, no serious question of evasion of tax arises as a member of such clubs really takes his own goods.

The Court referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for 46th Constitutional Amendment wherein it was observed that while sale by registered club or other association of persons (the club or association of persons having corporate status) to its members is taxable, sales by an unincorporated club or association of persons to its members is not taxable as such club or association, in law, has no separate existence from that of the members.

The Court held that the Statement of Objects and Reasons did not properly understand the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Young Men's Indian Association case. It was held that, in the Young Men's Indian Association case, the Supreme Court had held that sale of good by an incorporated entity to its members is sale to self and hence, does not amount to sale of goods for levy of sales tax.

Thus, the Court ruled that the 46th amendment to the Constitution did not overcome the decision in the Young Men's Indian Association case and the doctrine of mutuality remains applicable even after the amendment.

The Court also referred to the Constitution Bench decision in the case of BSNL v. Union of India - 2006-TIOL-15-SC-CT-LB wherein it was specifically observed that 46th Constitutional Amendment overcomes the decision in Young Men's Indian Association case. However, the Court held that such an observation was not the ratio decidendi and hence cannot be said to be laying down any law in this regard.

The Court further held that even in case of sale /supply of goods by unincorporated associations or body of persons to members, the requirement of consideration is not fulfilled since in case of sale of goods to self, there exist no consideration as per the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872. Accordingly, the Court ruled that there is no sale even in cases of sale by unincorporated association or body of persons to member.

Ruling in case of supply of services

The Court held that for the period prior to 1.7.2012 i.e. before the Negative List regime, the definition of "club or association" as per Section 65(2a) of the Finance Act, 1994 specifically excluded incorporated entities. Thus, the Court held that incorporated entities providing services to its members would be outside the service tax net prior to 1.7.2012.

For the period post 1.7.2012, the Court referred to the definition of "services" given under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 which required provision of service by one person to another. The Court held that the doctrine of mutuality, doctrine of agency, trust, as applicable to sales tax cases, would be applicable to the definition of services. Accordingly, the Court ruled that services by a member's club to its members would amount to services to self and hence would not qualify as service as defined above. Having said this, the Court referred to Explanation 3, which was subsequently incorporated and read that incorporated associations or body of persons and their members are statutorily to be treated as distinct persons. Accordingly, it was held that services provided by member's club, who are not incorporated under any law for the time being force, to its members would be taxable.

Author's View

The decision of the Supreme Court would provide much awaited relief to member's club and similarly situated entities like the cooperative societies, resident welfare associations etc. who were being burdened with VAT (for sale of goods to their members) or service tax (rendition of services to members).

The judgment is landmark for two reasons. First, it boldly and eruditely overcomes the 46th Constitutional Amendment and secondly, it distinguishes the observations made by the Constitution Bench in BSNL's case and upholds the doctrine of mutuality.

Impact of the judgement on GST Law

The ratio of this judgment would be applicable even under the GST regime in respect of supply of goods and / or services by member's clubs or cooperative societies to its members.

The term supply is defined under Section 7 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST") and includes all forms of supply of goods and services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, licence, exchange made or agreed to be made by a person in the course or furtherance of business.

Entry 7 to Schedule II of the CGST provides that goods supplied by unincorporated associations or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration shall be treated as supply of goods under the GST Law.

No such deeming fiction has been created under Schedule II with respect to supply of services. Following the ratio of the judgement, it follows that:

(a)  Supply of goods and services by incorporated entities to its members would not be taxable.

(b)  Supply of services by an unincorporated entities to its members would not be taxable

(c)  However, by virtue of the deeming fiction, supply of goods by an unincorporated entity to its members would be taxable.

Having said this, we are of the view that even in case of supply of goods by an unincorporated entity to its members, it can be argued that there exists no consideration as defined under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which require consideration to be paid by one person to the other. However, in this case, applying the doctrine of mutuality, it follows that supply made to self and consideration made to self would not qualify as consideration.

[The views expressed are strictly personal.]

(DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the site)