SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 03-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.
v.
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Peition (Civil) No. 961 of 2018)
DECEMBER 03, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.32 – Writ petition alleging violation
of Art.14 and impugning the definition of ‘goods’ under s.2(52) of
the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 – Maintainability of –
Held: Maintainable – Writ petition alleging violation of Art.14
specially with respect to a parliamentary Act can be entertained
under Art.32.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: s.2(52) – Whether
the inclusion of actionable claim in the definition of goods as given
in s.2(52) of the Act, 2017 is contrary to the legal meaning of goods
and unconstitutional – Held: Art.366(12) defines goods to include
all materials, commodities, and articles – Definition of goods as
occurring in Art.366(12) is inclusive definition and does not
specifically exclude actionable claim from its definition – Whenever
inclusive definition is given of an expression, it always intends to
enlarge the meaning of words or phrases, used in the definition –
The definition of goods as contained in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930
in s.2(7) is every kind of movable property other than actionable
claims and money; whereas definition of goods in s.2(52) in the
Act, 2017 is every kind of movable property other than money and
securities “but includes actionable claim” – Thus, the Constitution
framers were 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 Art.366(12), the
Constitution framers never intended to give any restrictive meaning
to the word “goods” – Thus, the definition of goods under s.2(52)
of the Act, 2017 does not violate any constitutional provision nor it
is in conflict with the definition of goods given under Art.366(12) –
Art.366 clause (12) contains an inclusive definition and the
definition given in s.2(52) of Act, 2017 is not in conflict with
151
   [2020] 13 S.C.R. 151
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
definition 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.246A
begins with non obstante clause, that is, “Notwithstanding anything
contained in Arts.246 and 254”, which confers very wide power to
make laws – The power to make laws as conferred by Art.246A
fully empowers the Parliament to make laws with respect to goods
and 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 the
Constitution Bench in Sunrise Associates in paragraphs 33, 40, 43
and 48 of the judgment has laid down as the proposition of law that
lottery is an actionable claim or the observations made in the
judgment were only an obiter dicta and not declaration of law –
Held: It cannot be said that the question as to whether lottery is a
goods or actionable claim had not arisen in the decision in Sunrise
Associates –When an item was held to be covered by excluded
category, the said conclusion could have been arisen only after
consideration of the definition and the exclusionary clause – Thus,
the submission  for the petitioner that the observations of the
Constitution Bench holding lottery as actionable claim was only
obiter dicta and not binding is not correct – The Constitution Bench
in Sunrise Associates  categorically held that lottery is actionable
claim after due consideration which is ratio of the judgment.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Art.14 – Whether
exclusion of lottery, betting and gambling from Item No.6 Schedule
III of the Act, 2017 is hostile discrimination and violative of Art.14
of the Constitution of India – Held: When Act, 2017 defines 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
– Regulation including taxation in one or other form on the activities
namely lottery, betting and gambling has been in existence since
several decades – When the parliament has included these three
for purpose of imposing GST and not taxed other actionable claims,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.