TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute that not all horse owners, who agree to provide their horses to such race organising clubs, get this consideration in the form of the said prize money/ stake from such clubs. Only those horse owners receive these considerations whose horses win the races organized by such clubs. Thus, there is no direct nexus between the activities carried out by the horse owners, viz.by providing thoroughbred horses to race clubs for organising horse race events, and the prize money received by such horse owners. The Applicant-Respondent has himself contended in their submissions as reproduced herein above that for the occurrence of any taxable event, there must be direct and immediate link between the supply made and the consideration received. He has also cited few judicial pronouncements to strengthen his arguments. However, as discussed, in the present facts and circumstances, this clause of direct and immediate link between the supply and consideration is absolutely absent in the present situation. As such, it would not be construed as taxable supply /events. The applicant- respondent had contended that they provide service to the Club and that the contract is a conditional contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... une (herein after referred to as the Appellant ) against the Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-12/2019-20/B-106 dated 18.10.2019 = 2019 (10) TMI 528 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 1. M/s. Vijay Baburao Shirke (herein after referred to as the Respondent ) is a proprietorship firm with GSTIN number 27ACMPS4462Q1ZM and registered address at 72-76, Industrial Estate, Mundhwa, Pune, Maharashtra - 411036. He inter-alia owns horses and is engaged in participation of horse races organized by the Royal Western India Turf Club (RWITC) located in Mumbai/Pune and also by the other race clubs in India. 2. The RWITC conducts horse races at Mumbai Pune as per the schedule prescribed in its yearly Prospectus and invites race horse owners to participate in the race. The prospectus contains certain terms and conditions, which are applicable to all the race horse owners, who intend to participate in the race. One of the conditions is that the willing race horse owners, who intend to participate in the race, has to pay Entry Fees to RWITC. Apart from this, there are also certain conditions, viz. certificates in respect of the health of the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019 (10) TMI 528 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA , passed by the Ld. Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling, which had been received by the Department on 18.10.2019. 6. The Appellant, inter-alia, submitted that in pursuance to an oral enquiry made from the concerned officer of The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for Goods and Services Tax, it appeared that the separate application for COD in respect of the Revenue ought to be filed. 7. They, further, submitted that the crucial facts of this case were brought to the notice of the Appellant by the Additional Director, DGGI, Pune Zonal Unit vide letter dated 28.11.2019. It took considerable amount of time to come to the conclusion that an appeal is required to be filed against the impugned advance ruling order. Also, due to the nuances to the newly rolled out GST law, there has been a delay in filing this appeal. 8. The Appellant, therefore, prayed that based upon the totality of the circumstances mentioned above, this Hon ble Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for Goods and Services Tax, may consider the prayer of the applicant in granting the condonation for delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... race ; that the prize money/stakes is not a consideration for provision/supply of any service, therefore, the amount, collected as service tax/GST, should have been deposited to the credit of the Centra! Government as provided under Section 73A(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 as well as Section 76 of CGST Act, 2017, however, he had discharged the service tax/GST liability partly by cash and partly by utilizing CENVAT credit/ITC; that he had availed CENVAT credit/ITC of the service tax/GST levied on the charges paid to the horse trainers and as well as the Entry Fees paid to the RWITC for allowing his horses to participate in the race; that the services provided by the trainers by way of training given to his horses, and services provided by RWITC by way of allowing his horses to participate in race do not qualify as input services , as the said services are not used for the provision/supply of any taxable services; that Mr. V. S. Hasolkar, Vice President, Finance and Accounts of Shirke Group of Companies, was authorized to represent Mr. Vijay B. Shirke, who was examined under Section 83 of Finance Act 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 and his statement was recorded on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the race, as had it been the case, it would have been given to all the participating horse owners. However, that is not the case here. Therefore, in the present arrangement, there is no quid pro quo because the prize money/stakes are not being given for the participation in the race, but for the winning or getting a place in the race. (iv) that receiving prize money/stakes is a consequence of chance, skill and circumstance, therefore, there is no certainty in this regard and hence, the prize money/stakes would not be treated as consideration against the owners participation in the race. 14. The Appellant further submitted that in view of the above submissions and contentions, it is clear that the participation of the owners in horse race is not a service rendered to RWITC and the prize money/stakes is not a consideration paid to the owners by RWITC for provision of any services; that, this activity does not fall under clause (a) of Section 7(1) CGST Act, 2017, as the essential ingredients of supply is missing in the activity undertaken by the Respondent by way of making his horse participate in the race as the Respondent is not getting any consideration against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntative, with an intention to prevent the investigation officer to bring the facts of this case to the knowledge of Hon ble member of AAR at the time of hearing of the case through nodal officer. Because of this act of suppression by the Applicant-Respondent, the facts related to the initiation of the enquiry/investigation against the Applicant-Respondent in the same issue as that raised by the Applicant-Respondent in his advance ruling application filed before AAR, could not be brought to the knowledge of the AAR. 18. The Appellant cited the case of Gurdeep Singh Sachar (CPIL stamp No.22 of 2019) = 2019 (6) TMI 1008 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , wherein the Hon ble Bombay High Court observed as under:- In the instant case, admittedly, there is no dispute that the amounts pooled in the escrow account is an actionable claim , as the same is to be distributed amongst the winning participating members as per the outcome of a game. But, as held hereinabove since the activities of the respondent No.3 do not amount to lottery, betting and gambling, the said actionable claim would fall under Entry 6 of the Schedule III under Section 7 (2) of CGST Act. Therefore, this activity or t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order being not just, legal, and proper be set aside and the same may be declared void ab initio. Respondent s (M/s. Vijay B. Shirke) submission dt.09.03.2020 23. At the outset, the respondent submits that the impugned order, in so far as it is in favor of the respondent, is correct in law and hence, needs to be upheld. The Honorable Advance Ruling Authority ( ARA ) has passed a detailed and cogent order. The said order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Therefore, the present appeal, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be rejected. The Present Appeal is time barred 24. The appellant-department has filed the present appeal along with application of condonation of delay for seeking condonation of thirty (30) days in filing the present appeal. The reason stated by the appellant-department for the said delay was that the crucial facts of this case were brought to the notice of the appellant-department by the Deputy Director, DGGI, Pune Zonal Unit vide letter dated 28.11.2019 and accordingly, the department has taken considerable time to decide whether the appeal is required to be filed or not. The appellant-department further stated that due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uade the court to exercise their judicial discretion. Liberal construction of the expression sufficient cause is intended to advance substantial justice which itself presupposes no negligence or inaction on the part of the appellant department, to whom want of bona fide is imputable. There can be instances where the Court should condone the delay; equally there would be cases where the Court must exercise its discretion against the applicant for want of any of these ingredients or where it does not reflect sufficient cause as understood in law. The expression sufficient cause implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The words sufficient means adequate enough, as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. It embraces no more than that which provides a plentitude which, when done, suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the light of existing circumstances and when viewed from the reasonable standard of practical and cautious men. The sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an excusable one. These provisions give the Courts enough power and discretion to apply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The relevant para is extracted hereunder: 12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry reason itself shows that the department was satisfied with the ruling and never intended to file any appeal. Thus, the present appeal is a motivated one. It lacks bonafide and hence, must be dismissed. The Present Appeal is not Maintainable 34. At Para A of the present appeal, the appellant-department contends that the respondent has suppressed certain vital facts in the application made before the ARA about the investigations that had been initiated by the DGGI against Vijay Baburao Shirke. The appellant has stated that the Authority for Advance Ruling has not considered certain facts while passing the order in favour of the respondents. 35. At Para A of the present appeal, the appellant department has contended that the respondent has suppressed the very fact that an investigation/proceeding was pending against them by not stating/mentioning the source from which they have received advise for treating prize money as a service/supply. 36. It is pertinent to look into Section 104 of the act which reads as under:- 104. Advance ruling too be void in certain circumstances ,- (1) Where the Authority or the Appellate Authority finds that advance ruli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilty of fraud, suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, then the provisions of section 104 would become redundant or otiose. There would be no meaning of section 104 as every such point can be raised in appeal. Such an interpretation would be absurd and hence, needs to be avoided. 40. The legislature is a perfect legislative body. It is presumed to know all the laws when it enacts any particular legislation, in Union of India V/s Hansoli Devi reported at (2002) 7 SCC 273 = 2002 (9) TMI 799 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that the legislature never waste s it words or say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to legislation will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. 41. The legislature is a perfect legislative body. It is presumed to know all the laws when it enacts any particular legislation. In Union of India V/s Hansoli Devi reported at (2002) 7 SCC 273 = 2002 (9) TMI 799 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that the legislature never wastes its words or say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to legislation will not be accepted except ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s evident that section 100 of the Act has to be read together and in light of section 104 of the Act. It is well settled that every clause of the statute should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act, so as, as far as possible to make a consistent enactment of the whole of the statute. A bare mechanical interpretation of words and application of a legislative intent is devoid of concept and purpose will reduce the most of the remedial and beneficent legislation to futility. To be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul. Words, phrases and rules occurring in a statute are to be read together and not in an isolated manner. The legislation never intends to give one from one hand and take away from other hand. Hence, the present appeal is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed, in limine . 45. There is yet another reason which supports the above submission of the respondent. The above provision section 104 would be applicable only in case where the applicant (assessee) is the appellant. The appellate authority would pass an order on the appeal of the appellant (assessee). Such an order can be recalled if the appellant (asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h an appeal be filed? The present appeal is gross abuse of the process of law. 52. Third, in any case, the investigation being conducted by the DGGI officials relates to reversal of cenvat credit during the service tax regime. There is no investigation and/or enquiry pending during the GST regime. Hence, there is no relevance of the said inquiry in so far as the present ruling is concerned. The respondent has not suppressed any fact, which is material in deciding the said ruling, from the Authority for Advance ruling. Hence, the present appeal is liable to be rejected. 53. At Para K of the department appeal, the appellant-department has alleged that the respondent even after being aware of the investigation conducted against him by DGGI, Pune, chose to file the application before Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra. Hence, the respondent has suppressed the very fact that an enquiry or a proceeding was initiated against them under section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. 54. The respondent submits that the above contention of the appellant-department is without any logic, basis and reasoning. It is wholly perverse. It is mala fide. It is far from truth. 55. At ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for the period 2012-13 to 2017-18 iv. Details of CENVAT credit availed on input services during the period 2012-13 to 2017-18 v. Balance sheet / profit . loss account for FY2012-13 to 2017-18 57. On perusal of the above, it can be well understood that the investigation/enquiry initiated against the respondent was for the erstwhile service tax regime. The enquiry does not relate to GST, Hence, the department cannot be a bar to proceed with the present proceedings. The previous enquiry bears no relevance to the present application. The present application was filed on 23.04.2019 to understand the applicability of GST to the present transaction. Hence, the department cannot place reliance on proceedings/enquiry conducted regarding the service tax to negate the applicability of GST on the present transaction. There was no proceeding or enquiry pending under the GST law on the date of filing the application. Hence, the Revenue is completely misdirected in alleging that the applicant has suppressed any fact from the authority. This is nothing but false. 58. If such a contention were to be accepted as correct, then no assessee who has been issued a show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solkar, Vice-President, Finance Accounts, wherein he has stated that the respondent has not received prize money/stakes for all the horses that have participated in the race. The stakes received by the respondent cannot be treated as consideration for provision of service. The activity of participation in horse race is not a service as the element of consideration is absent. The respondent is not providing any output supply. Hence, any services received in this regard cannot be treated as inputs for claiming input tax credit. Accordingly, according to the appellant, he has admitted to reverse the CENVAT Credit/input tax credit. 63. The statement made by Shri V. S. Hasolkar is only an opinion or his interpretation of the Finance Act, 1994. If Shri Hasolkar had stated that service tax is chargeable on prize money, would the DGGI have accepted his statement as Law? Opinion from expert consultants who are far more knowledgeable in matters of interpretation, were presented to the DGGI by the same Shri Hasolkar, which stated the prize money was liable to service tax. Why was this opinion not accepted by DGGI?. How did Shri Hasolkar give a contrary opinion in his statement when he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bai and Pune. Such horse races are conducted as per their yearly prospectus. They invite horse race owners to participate in the race. The prospectus contains the terms and conditions, out of which one such term is payment of entry fee for those horse owners who participates in the horse races. The prize money earned in such races is given to the owners/jockeys/trainers as provided in the yearly prospectus. The prize money is pooled from the entry fees pooled from the horse owners and from the sponsored amounts received by RWITC from its sponsors. Once the results are declared, the amount is credited to the account of the owners and a certain percentage to the jockeys/trainers. 69. At Para E of the present appeal, the appellant-department has contended that not all horse owners are treating the prize money received as consideration for a supply/service. Only few owners have charged and recovered service tax on prize money/stakes from RWITC Mumbai and Pune on monthly/quarterly basis by issuing invoices/bills. As per the appeal, 95-96% of the horse owners have not considered the amount of prize money/stakes as consideration for taxable supplies. Hence, they have neither charged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, the respondent submits that they have not suppressed any fact from the authority for advance ruling. In fact, the appellant-department is trying to mislead this Honorable Appellate Authority by drawing attention to issues which are totally alien to the case at hand. Instead of discharging the burden cast upon them, the appellant-department is making toothless and irrelevant allegations. Submissions on merits The question raised by the respondent is covered under section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 74. At Para L of the department appeal, the appellant-department have reproduced section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 to contend that the question raised by the respondent in their application is not covered under the said provision of law. As per the appeal, the respondent has asked a question pertaining to the payment of GST on prize money won by the competitors. The same is not covered under the provisions under section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. 75. First, the question raised by the respondent squarely falls under clause (d) and (e) of section 9/ of the C CST Act, 2017. Relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under for reference - 97. (1) An applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advice/opinion from Rohan Shah, Advocate, wherein he was suggested that there is no element of service or supply in the activity of participation in horse races. 80. At Para F of the department appeal, the appellant-department have reproduced section 65B (44) of the Finance Act,1994 to suggest that there was no service being provided by the respondent for which they have received consideration in the form of prize money/stakes. 81 . At Para G of the department appeal, the appellant-department has contended that the owner s participation in the horse race was based on Suo-moto decision. It was not a result of pre-agreement or a pre-concert between the participants and RWITC. There was no obligation on the horse owner towards RWITC. The participation of owners is not an activity carried out by a person on behest of or for the other. The prize money is given to only that horse owner who wins the race. There are several owners who do not win the race and no prize money is given to them. There is no quid pro quo. Prize money is not won for participation in the horse race. There is no certainty of winning the prize money for horse races. 82. At Para H of the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view, while disregarding those which are unsuitable to the Appellant. In any case, these are mere opinions/ interpretation of various consultants, none of which have the force of law. 86. The respondent submits that the contention of the department that the respondent has not provided any service in as much as they are not providing specialized/trained horses. The respondent provides specialized bred and trained horses to the clubs for participation in the races. The same is condition in the prospectus for participation in the race. The respondent places reliance on the prospectus. 87. Chapter III of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ( CGST Act ) provides for levy and collection of GST. Section 7 of the CGST Act provides for the scope of supply, it is, inter alia, provided that supply includes:- a) all forms of supply of goods or services or both such os sole, transfer, barter, exchange, license, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business; b) import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business; c) the activities specified i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horse owners. 94. On perusal of the prospectus, one can infer that the same is a conditional contract. On plain perusal of the same, it becomes that the same lays down the terms and conditions of the contract i.e. participation in the race. It lays down what would be the role and scope of the supplier of the horse (supplier of service) and the role and scope of RWITC (recipient of service). It clearly provides for the consideration clause as well. Hence, it would be naive to suggest that there is no contract of service between the respondent and RWITC. The prospectus offers the horse owners an opportunity to participate in the races conducted each year. Several horse owners participate in the horse races organized by RWITC every year. The horse owners pay participation fees. The horse owners are rewarded with prize money only upon winning or upon attaining the position 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th as stated in the prospectus. Thus, the contract between the parties is conditional in as much as it is dependent upon the success of a horse owner in the race. 95. In the instant case, RWITC has issued prospectus to the horse owners. The contract contains the general terms and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter the skills of the horses, the greater the commercial value of the event. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that both the race organizer and the horse owner receive a direct and individual benefit from the transaction. Accordingly, there is a direct link between the outstanding performance of a horse in a race (supply) and the payment of the prize (consideration). In fact, without the horse, there is no race. Without the horse, there is no event. Without the horse, there is nothing. The horse is the essence and substance of the entire transaction. Thus, it would be impossible to suggest that there is no supply in terms of section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the applicant would be liable to pay GST on the said transaction. Hence, the present appeal is liable to be rejected. 100. Third , the contention of the appellant department that the participation in the race is the choice of the owner. There is no pre-agreement with RWITC. This is clearly incorrect. The choice to participate in the race is of the respondent. However, the club (RWITC) allows the respondent to participate in the said race. There is an obligation on part of the respondent to make his horse availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the respondent has not reversed the cenvat credit and has instead sought an advance ruling dated 23.04.2019. This submission is totally beyond the present proceedings. There is no ruling delivered by the Authority on the said issue. Hence, the said ground of appeal is beyond the scope of the proceedings. 105. At Para M of the department appeal, the appellant-department has contended that the respondent has not provided any service by making the horse participate in the horse races. The respondent does not receive prize money in each and every horse race that he participates in. Therefore, such prize money is not a consideration for any supply. 106. At Para N of the department appeal, the appellant-department has reproduced section 2(17) to suggest that the activity of the respondent is not covered under the definition of business under CGST Act, 2017. 107. At Para O of the department appeal, the appellant-department has reproduced section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 to suggest that the prize money won in horse races by the respondent is an actionable claim. 108. The above submission of the appellant Revenue is without any legal basis. The uncertainty of winning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lub does not owe anything to the participants other than the prize money. There is no existing debt. Apart from this, there is no beneficial interest in any moveable property. Hence, there is no question of any actionable claim arising in the instant case. 113. In the instant case, there is certainty. If a horse wins, the club has to award the prize money as advertised in its prospectus. There is no way that the club can refuse to make the said payment. Thus, the prize money is certain. In other words, it is a conditional contract. However, it would be erroneous to suggest that there is no contract. Let us explain with a simple illustration. Assuming a lawyer agrees to argue a case, and his fees is dependent upon success in the matter, (assuming the same is not barred by any other law), can it be suggested that the lawyer has not provided any service. The answer to this question is clearly in the negative. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of any merit. 114. At Para S T of the department appeal, the appellant-department has cited the decision in the case of Gurdeep Singh Sachar (CPIL Stamp no.22 of 2019) = 2019 (6) TMI 1008 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lves as prize money immediately upon conclusion of game, as a result of which, some players get more than their contribution, and some lose money. According to the petitioner in that case, since these activities are nothing but gambling or betting even if this acknowledgement amount is separately kept in an Escrow account and not retained by the organizer, GST would be payable even on this amount. However, since GST is not being paid on this acknowledgement amount by the organizer and since the activities such as those being conducted by the organizer, are nothing but betting or gambling . Admittedly, the facts of the present case are totally different. The issue whether RWITC is liable to pay GST on its earnings received from the bets is not involved in the instant case. The issue whether participation / entry fee is liable to GST or not is not involved in the instant case. The issue is whether the consideration received by the owner of the horse, is liable to GST in the hands of the participant or not. Hence, the said ruling would be of no assistance to the case of the Revenue. 116. The Appellant seems to be confused between participating in the race and betting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Associates supra, the Court held that lottery tickets were actionable claims and thus, not goods. In that case, the Supreme Court explaining the concept of goods vis-a-vis actionable claims, held that on purchase of a lottery ticket one merely gets a claim to a conditional interest in the prize money that is not in the purchasers possession. However, in the instant case, the said principle would apply to guests (punters) betting on the said race and not on owners whose horses participate in a race and are awarded prize money. 120. At U of the department appeal, the appellant-department has cited the decision in Bai Mumbai Trust-2019-TlOL-2158-HC-MUM = 2019 (9) TMI 929 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , wherein the Bombay High Court has held that to be a supply under section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 there must be a contemplated consideration. The reliance placed on this judgment is wholly out of context. The facts of the cited case are totally different and distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the cited case, the issue before the Hon ble High Court was whether fees received by court receiver appointed by the court could be subject to GST or not. The court replied in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) The monetary value of any act or forbearance, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient of the service or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or State Government; Provided that a deposit given in respect of the supply of goods or services or both shall not be considered as payment made for such supply unless the supplier applies such deposit as consideration for the said supply 124. On plain perusal of the above definition, it would become clear that any payment made in respect of or in relation to or in response to supply of services would be treated as consideration. The definition is very wide. The term includes makes it expansive. Hence, it would be incorrect to suggest that the said prize money is not a consideration for any supply. The respondent is not liable to reverse the input tax credit 125. As per the department appeal, the amount of input tax credit availed by the respondent should be reversed in as much as there is no output supply being made by the respondent. 126. The applicant submits that input tax credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same issues as those raised in the subject advance ruling application, is sustainable in terms of proviso to section 98(2) read with section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017, or not. Consequently, if the impugned advance ruling stands the test of sustainability after being subjected to the aforesaid provisions, the second moot issue would be as to whether the prize money/stakes, received by the Applicant-Respondent from the horse racing clubs, for winning the race organised by such horse racing clubs, would be subjected to levy of GST under the provisions of the GST Act. 132. Now, we set out to examine the first moot issue, i.e., whether the impugned advance ruling order is sustainable in terms of the provisions laid out under proviso to section 98 (2) read with section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017 under the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. As per the Appellant- Department, the Respondent has suppressed the material facts regarding the investigation proceedings initiated against him by the DGGI, PZU on the very issues which were raised by the Applicant- Respondent in the subject advance ruling application filed by him before AAR, hence the advance ruling obtained by the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definition of Supply , as laid out in section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017. The relevant portion of section 7 ibid, is being reproduced herein under: 7(1) supply includes:- (a) oil forms of supply of goods or services or both such os sole, transfer, barter, exchange, license, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business; (b) import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business; (c) the activities specified in Schedule I, made or agreed to be made without a consideration; and 135. Thus, on plain reading of the above provisions, Supply as envisaged under section 7 (1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, should essentially and invariably have the following ingredients:- (i) There should be a supply of goods or services or both; (ii) lt should be for a consideration; (iii) It should be in the course or furtherance of business. 136. By applying the above definition of Supply to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is observed that no service has been provided by the Applicant- Respondent to the racing clubs for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . And if the same is to held as a service then, even the rest of the horses which are not winners should get consideration for enabling the club to hold a race which is surely not the case in the instant issue. Surely, it cannot be a case that service is provided by all and consideration is received by only a few ones. Also, the prize, which is given by the Club on winning, is argued to be a consideration by the applicant-respondent. But as observed by us earlier if the running of the horses is held to be a service and if the receipt of the prize is a consideration then it should have been received by all the horse owners who have run their horses in the race. Secondly, if it is service then why the horse owners pay an entry fee for providing that service? It is therefore difficult to accept the contention of the applicant and the ruling of the AAR that the horse owners have supplied a service to the club by providing their horses in the race. 137. The applicant- respondent had contended that they provide service to the Club and that the contract is a conditional contract and therefore there is supply. The applicant-respondent has argued there may be a conditional contract he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
