GST

Revenue Misinterprets Jurisprudence on Game of Skill: Kar HC Introduces Sanity Through Gameskraft Judgment

by

On 11 May 2023, a Single Judge Bench of the Karnataka High Court delivered a judgment in the Gameskraftcase[1] deciding that the actions of the Revenue Department against online intermediary company, M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd (‘GTPL’) had no basis in law. The Revenue Department inter alia has issued an intimation notice under Section 74(5), CGST Act, 2017 calling GTPL to deposit Rs 21,000 crores (appx) along with penalty and interest. The impugned intimation notice, and the subsequent show cause notice issued under Section 74(1), CGST Act, 2017 were the subject of the dispute. 

Before I delve into the judgment, I think it is worth clarifying that the gambling law jurisprudence in India divides games into games of skill and games of chance. The latter are typically understood to be synonyms of gambling/betting. And if a game has elements of both skill and chance, then the predominant element decides the nature of the game, e.g., a game which is predominantly skill-based is understood to be a game of skill while a game which is predominantly game of chance is classified as a game of chance.    

Core Issue 

GTPL’s/Petitioner’s main argument was that they are not involved in ‘betting/gambling’. While the petitioners relied on various judgments to support their two claims, their claim is best understood through description of their business model. The petitioners claimed that they operated a platform and acted as an intermediary for players to play a game of rummy. For example, two players ‘A’ and ‘B’ intending to play rummy would download their mobile application. Both players would deposit Rs 200 each, and the petitioner for facilitating and hosting the game would charge Rs 20 each from both the players and keep the remaining Rs 360 in trust. At the end of the game, the petitioner would disburse Rs 360 to the winner. The petitioner claimed that it had no lien or right over the prize money of Rs 360. Its revenue from the above transaction was only Rs 40 on which it paid GST. 

Petitioners claimed that the ‘buy-in’ amount or gross transaction money facilitated through their platform – which in the above example was Rs 400 – could not be treated as their revenue. The amount belonged to the players, and petitioners had no lien or right over the said amount, which in this case the Revenue Department alleged was Rs 70,000 crores. And presumably the gross transaction amount was the basis of GST demand of Rs 21,000 crores.      

Petitioners further claimed that they were not involved in supply of actionable claims. And that actionable claims if any were between the players which was also irrelevant because actionable claims were exempt from GST. Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017 lists activities or transactions which shall be treated as neither supply of goods nor supply of services. Entry 6 of Schedule III states as follows: 

            Actionable claims, other than lottery, betting and gambling. 

Thus, actionable claims unless they are lottery, betting and gambling are outside the purview of GST. And the petitioners claimed that neither are they involved in supply of actionable claims nor are the games on their platform, specifically rummy, captured by ‘lottery, betting and gambling’ since rummy is a game of skill and not a game of chance.  

The petitioners relied on the decades old Indian jurisprudence that has clearly held rummy to be a game of skill. And petitioners argued that playing rummy online does not impart it the character of a game of chance and neither does playing rummy with stakes change its character from a game of skill to a game of chance. 

Revenue Department Makes Incredulous Arguments 

As is evident from the preceding discussion, the Revenue Department’s claim that the petitioner’s activities were subject to GST would have only succeeded if they could prove that the petitioners supplied actionable claims in the form of lottery, betting and gambling. And since it was the game of rummy in question, they had to establish that the game of rummy played online and with stakes would amount to a game of chance for it to be included in the phrase ‘lottery, betting and gambling’. To establish its case, the Revenue Department indulged in an exercise of selective, non-contextual and self-serving interpretation of relevant precedents. The Revenue Department made various far-fetched arguments, and to highlight its approach, I will elaborate on its two central claims, i.e., a game of skill when played with stakes transforms into a game of chance. In this case, it meant that rummy, a game held to be a game of skill, should be viewed as a game of chance since the players involved placed stakes on the game. Further, the commission charged by the petitioners should not be viewed as a commission but earning profits and gains from stakes because their commission amount varied depending on the stakes placed on the game and was not an across the board charge.      

The Revenue made bizzare claims based on their incorrect interpretation of the jurisprudence on game of skill and game of chance. To begin with, they denied that rummy was a game of skill, contrary to well-established jurisprudence[2] that stated otherwise. Instead, they quoted selective paragraphs out of context to back their incredulous claim.

The High Court was not swayed by the Revenue Department’s fanciful interpretive exercise and instead reiterated that rummy is a game of skill ‘where predominantly skill is exercised to control the outcome of the game.’ (para 5) It added that a playing rummy with stakes does not make it a wagering contract, since a wager requires that the person placing the wager should have no interest in the outcome of a game while a player is clearly interested in winning the game. The High Court stated that: 

The game of rummy played with stakes is played between players on the basis of the assessment of their own skill. Therefore, while playing for stakes, the player makes a value judgment on his/her skill. The outcome of the game is determined predominantly by the skill of the players. Therefore, rummy played with stakes same cannot be viewed as a ‘forecast’ or a shot at the “hidden target”. (para 11)

The Revenue relied on the Satyanarayana case to argue that petitioner’s earning commission fee for facilitating rummy with stakes on its platform amounted to facilitating gambling and running a gaming house. Satyanarayana case had clearly held that rummy is a game of skill even if played with stakes. The Supreme Court had added that if there is evidence of gambling or owner of house or club was making a profit or gain from rummy, the offence of running a gaming house could be established. The Karnataka High Court correctly read the ratio of Saynarayana case to hold that charging a sitting fees is not profit in context of a common gaming house and that organizer of a skill-based game is not prohibited from charging a fee from the players of the game. (para 5 and 7). Accordingly, petitioners making profits and gains from rummy played on their platform cannot be accused of running a common gaming house. The High Court concluded that: 

Irrespective of who wins, the Petitioners, in terms of its contract with the players, collects a percentage of the amounts staked as its platform fees / commission for providing its services as an intermediary. Thus, the Respondents cannot be permitted to supply words to these observations and say that placing of stakes on a game of skill amounts to gambling. In any event, from a reading of the whole judgment, it is evident that this last line is not the ratio of the judgment at all. (para 10)  

The edifice of the Revenue’s case collapsed with the Karnataka High Court rejecting its above two arguments. The High Court concluded that all the issues raised and argued were covered by Supreme Court’s judgment in All India Gaming Federation case[3], i.e., whether played physically or online, with or without stakes, game of skill does not lose its character and is determined by applying the predominance test. 

Karnataka High Court Dismisses the Revenue’s Case  

The Karnataka High Court combed through practically the entire post-Independence jurisprudence on game of skill v/s game of chance, cited the precedents copiously, highlighted relevant paragraphs of the ratio to emphasise that the context and meaning of the judgments was opposite to the Revenue Department’s arguments. The High Court concluded that the Revenue Department’s case was based on fragile footing and observed:  

After having dealt with the rival contentions as stated supra, it is significant to state that a perusal of the impugned show cause notice as well as contentions and submissions of the respondents will clearly indicate that the same are an outcome of a vain and futile attempt on the part of the respondents to cherry pick stray sentences from the judgments of various Courts including the Apex Court, this Court and other High Courts and try to build up a non-existent case out of nothing which clearly amounts to splitting hairs and clutching at straws which cannot be countenanced and is impermissible in law. (emphasis added) (para 7)

Accordingly, the High Court held that there is no difference between online and offline games of rummy and rummy does not become a game of chance if played with stakes. It held that Entry 6, Schedule III of CGST Act, 2017 was not applicable to only rummy played with or without stakes or any games which is preponderantly a game of skill and thus petitioner’s platforms were not taxable as ‘betting and gambling’ as contended by the Revenue Department. The show cause notice issued to petitioner’s was quashed for being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law.    

Way Forward 

The Revenue Department has made repeated claims that online gaming companies indulge in significant tax evasion. The credibility of tax evasion claims has not been established through actual numbers and neither has any evidence been shared publicly. But, CGST Act, 2017 and the IT Act, 1961 empower the Revenue Department sufficiently to tackle tax evasion and build a case of contravention of tax laws. 

However, after reading the Gameskraft judgment, the picture that emerges is that the Revenue Department had pre-determined that the online gaming platforms facilitate games of chance/gambling and earn the entire amount of transactions undertaken through them. And every argument was then moulded and force-fitted to reinforce the initial conclusion. The Karnataka High Court saw through the Revenue Department’s exercise and correctly chided it for indulging in such an exercise. In fact, so far-fetched was the Revenue Department’s claim that the High Court could have just referred to its previous decision in All India Gaming Federation caseand dismissed the Revenue Department’s claims. However, the detailed 325 page decision in this case might act as a deterrence for the Revenue Department since its central premise has been outrightly, painstakingly and comprehensively dismissed by the High Court by citing every major case on gambling law in detail. Whether the Karnataka High Court’s decision would deter the Revenue Department in any manner is tough to predict; but, if past is any indication the Revenue Department is likely to treat it as a minor hiccup in its pursuit of revenue, come hell or high water. 

[1] Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd v DGGSTI 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 18. 

[2] State of Andhra Pradesh v K. Satyanarayana & Ors AIR 1968 SC 825, at para 12. 

[3] All India Gaming Federation v State of Karnataka & Ors AIR 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 435. 

Refunds for Zero-Rated Exports Viewed as Fundamental to GST Regime

by

In a judgment pronounced on 16 February 2023, a Single Judge Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Tonbo Imaging India case[1] held that Rule 89(4)(C), CGST Rules, 2017 ‘is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, unjust and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act …’. (para 17) The writ petition filed by the petitioners challenged that the amendment to Rule 89(4)(C) – via Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 – was unconstitutional and the High Court upheld the same. I explore the arguments and the High Court’s reasoning in this post.  

Background to the Writ Petition  

The petitioners were engaged in designing, developing, and deploying various types of advanced imaging and sensor systems to control and understand complex environments. The petitioners exported the aforementioned products from May 2018 to March 2019. Accordingly, the petitioners claimed refunds of its zero-rated exports under Section 16, IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 54(3)(i), CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 89, CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioners claim was rejected by the Revenue Department for not filing proof as required under the amended Rule 89(4)(C) despite the petitioner contending that their case related to the period before the amendment and should be governed by the pre-amended rule. The petitioner argued that its case should be governed by the pre-amended version of Rule 89(4)(C) which stated as follows:

Turnover of zero-rated supply of goods means the value of zero-rated supply of goods made during the relevant period without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking as declared by the supplier, whichever is less, other than the turnover of supplies in respect of which refund is claimed under sub-rules (4A) or (4B) or both.

While the Revenue Department’s case was that the petitioner must show proof as required under the amended version of Rule 89(4)(C), which states as follows: 

Turnover of zero-rated supply of goods means the value of zero-rated supply of goods made during the relevant period without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking or the value which is 1.5 times the value of like goods domestically supplied by the same or, similarly placed supplier, as declared by the supplier, whichever is less, other than the turnover of supplies in respect of which refund is claimed under sub-rules (4A) or (4B) or both. (emphasis added)

The amended rule introduced the concept of comparing the value of exports of the supplier with its domestic supplies, and introducing an upper cap to the refunds based on the comparison. This would mean that if an exporter has paid a certain amount by way of GST on its purchases, then the Revenue Department may not refund the entire tax amount but only 1.5 times the value of like goods supplied domestically. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner assailed the amendment to Rule 89(4)(C) on various grounds. First, that while Section 16(3) allowed refund of taxes made in the course of making a zero-rated supply, the Rule in whittling the refund is ultra vires the parent statute. Second, the petitioners claimed that the amendment to Rule 89(4)(C) creates a hostile discrimination between exporters who export without payment of duty under a Bond/Letter of Undertaking and those who pay duty. And only exporters who made exports without payment of duty were subjected to the restriction under Rule 89(4)(C). Extending the Article 14 argument, the petitioners argued that the impugned Rule was arbitrary and unreasonable because it had no rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved by Section 16, IGST Act, 2017, i.e., zero-rating of exports. Third, the petitioners argued that amendment to the impugned Rule was violative of Article 19(1)(g) since it will affect availability of funds and hamper the rotation of their funds. Finally, the petitioners assailed the impugned Rule on the ground that it suffered from the vice of vagueness, did not define key terms nor did it prescribe the consequences if a similarly placed supplier was not found or the supplier did not supply similar goods domestically.       

High Court Accepts Petitioner’s Arguments 

The Karnataka High Court accepted almost all the petitioner’s arguments. It traced a brief legislative history of GST to conclude that zero-rating of exports was a core feature of GST in Section 16, IGST Act, 2017 and Section 54, CGST Act, 2017 with Rule 89 as a machinery provision to implement the policy of zero-rating. Based on this understanding, the High Court almost repeated all of the petitioner’s arguments approvingly. 

The High Court held that the amended Rule 89(4)(C) overrides the parent legislation since it restricts refunds while the parent provisions, i.e., Section 16, IGST Act, 2017 and Section 54, CGST Act, 2017, allow for full refunds for zero-rated supplies such as exports. It accepted the argument that the impugned Rule created hostile discrimination between two kinds of exporters, i.e., those who export without payment of duty and those who pay duty violating Article 14; especially since there was no rational nexus with the objective contained in Section 16, IGST Act, 2017. The High Court also opined that the impugned Rule was unreasonable since it affected the availability of funds and caused hardship to exporters. Further, it held the impugned Rule to be vague as phrases such as ‘like goods’ and ‘similarly placed supplier’ were not defined in the statute or relevant Rules. It concluded that:  

The object of zero rating would be lost if exports are made to suffer GST as the exporter would either pass it on to the foreign supplier or would absorb it himself; firstly it would mean that taxes are exported which is against the policy of zero rating supra and secondly, it would make exports uncompetitive being against the stated policy of the Government. The amending words therefore, do not sub serve the objectives set out in Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 nor Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 and are contrary to the clarifications given above. (Para 17(h))

The High Court viewed the impugned Rule at odds with the GST’s objective of making exports zero-rated and not subjecting them to the burden of tax. Zero-rating of goods is also in consonance with GST’s identity as a destination-based tax. The State had to discharge a heavy burden in arguing the reason for the departure from the core characteristics and policy of GST. However, no persuasive reason was argued by the State.  

Conclusion

The judgment is a closely reasoned judgment and supports its conclusions adequately. The entire premise of the judgment is that zero-rating of exports is a core feature of GST encoded in the legislation, and deviation from its via secondary legislation without a persuasive reason is impermissible. However, the judgment offers no perspective from the State and/or the Revenue Department. The Karnataka High Court never elaborated on the State’s arguments because considered them to be ‘neither relevant nor germane’ for adjudication of the petition. (para 27) Only argument of the State, i.e., the impugned Rule was amended to prevent misuse was referred to dismissed summarily. The High Court rightly held that in the absence of defining data the reason of misuse has no reasonable basis in law and neither can amendments to law be made on the premise of distrust without actually ascertaining the misuse. (para 22) Apart from the above, no detailed reference is made to the State’s arguments. Consequently, we never really get an insight as to why the amendment to Rule 89(4)(C) was made and the objective sought to be achieved by restricting refunds of exporters. And, at the time of writing, there seems to be no move to challenge this judgment either.    

[1] M/s Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd v Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 134. 

Onerous Burden: Supreme Court Restricts ITC Claims under KVAT Act, 2003

by

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court on 13 March 2023, decided a group of appeals under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘KVAT Act, 2003’) and denied Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) to purchasers.[1] While the dispute was under KVAT Act, 2003, the interpretive approach adopted by the Supreme Court could have some repercussions for taxpayers under GST. The aim of this post is to understand the Supreme Court’s interpretive approach and examine its relevance to GST. 

Introduction

The Supreme Court decided a group of appeals involving purchasers who were claiming ITC under the KVAT Act, 2003. The State denied purchasers ITC on the ground the sellers fell in either one of the following categories: they had filed ‘Nil’ returns, or were de-registered, or did not file returns or denied their turnover and refused to file taxes. The Karnataka High Court allowed purchasers to claim ITC on the ground that they had made payments to the sellers through account payee cheques and had produced relevant invoices to prove genuineness of the sale transactions. (para 4.1) The State filed appeal against the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court.  

Conditions to Claim ITC 

The central provision in the dispute was Section 70(1), KVAT Act, 2003 which provides that: 

For the purposes of payment or assessment of tax or any claim to input tax under this Act, the burden of proving that any transaction of a dealer is not liable to tax, or any claim to deduction of input tax is correct, shall lie on such dealer. 

The State argued that purchasers cannot claim to have successfully discharged the burden under Section 70, KVAT Act, 2003 by merely proving financial transfers/transactions through invoices and cheques. To discharge their burden, the State argued, the purchasers are also required to establish actual movement of goods. The State further argued that the High Court had not appreciated the fact that the State cannot recover taxes from a seller who files ‘Nil’ returns. The purchasers, on the other hand, argued that once they produce genuine invoices and evidence of payments through cheques, it should be considered sufficient discharge of their burden under Section 70, KVAT Act, 2003. And that the statute and the relevant Rules under KVAT Rules, 2005 – Rules 27 and 29 – did not require a purchaser to submit any additional documents to claim ITC. The purchasers further argued that if the seller had not paid the tax, then the State needs to recover the tax from the seller and not block their ITC. 

Interpreting Burden of Proof under Section 70 of KVAT Act, 2003  

The narrow issue that the Supreme Court was required to decide was if proving movement of goods was necessary for a purchaser to discharge the burden under Section 70, KVAT Act, 2003. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative and held that proving genuineness of the transaction and physical movement of goods is sine qua non to claim ITC and the same can only be proved through name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle, acknowledgement of the delivery of goods, etc. The Supreme Court held that:

If the purchasing dealer/s fails/fail to establish and prove the said important aspect of physical movement of the goods alleged to have been purchased by it/them from the concerned dealers and on which the ITC have been claimed, the Assessing Officer is absolutely justified in rejecting such ITC claim. (para 10)

Supreme Court repeated the same observation thrice in its judgment to emphasise that unless the purchaser proves movement of goods, the genuineness of the transaction could not be established and in its absence the burden of proof under Section 70, KVAT Act, 2003 was not discharged by the purchasers. In my view, the Supreme Court repeatedly states its conclusion in the judgment to disguise it as reasoning. There is no explanation by the Supreme Court as to why proving movement of goods should be read as an essential condition under Section 70, KVAT Act, 2003. If the relevant statutory provisions and Rules did not impose an express condition on the purchaser to prove movement of goods and the same was being read into the provisions, there was an additional need for the Supreme Court to provide its reasons. Merely repeating the same conclusions do not reinforce an interpretation or make it more defensible.  

In this case, the relevant provision(s) were silent if the purchaser needs to prove the movement of goods. The facts elaborated in the judgment do not clearly establish if interpreting the additional condition of movement of goods was necessary. The State argued that the additional condition was necessary to prove genuineness of the transaction and the Supreme Court certainly went beyond the text of the statutory provisions and relevant Rules to accept the State’s argument. Perhaps the Supreme Court in trying to prevent tax evasion and fraudulent ITC claims did not give sufficient thought about the need to protect taxpayer rights. Or maybe the Supreme Court was trying to compensate for an oversight in legislative drafting. Irrespective, the deficient reasoning is palpable in the judgment.        

Attributing Fault, Denying ITC, and Position under GST  

The Karnataka High Court by allowing ITC claims had agreed with the purchaser’s argument – also repeated before the Supreme Court – that they cannot be held liable for seller’s failure to deposit the tax. While the State argued that a purchaser can only claim ITC on the tax paid by the seller, and if the seller does not deposit tax, it is logical to block ITC of the purchaser. GST seeks to address the same issue, i.e., who should be liable for the seller’s failure to deposit tax with the State? Can the State block or reverse ITC of a purchaser because of the seller’s fault? If so, under what circumstances? We do not have clear answers for now.   

One of the conditions to claim ITC is provided under Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 which states that no person shall be entitled to ITC in respect of supply of any goods or services or both unless the tax charged in respect of such supply ‘has actually been paid to the Government’ either through cash or utilization of ITC. Thus, seller must deposit the tax for a purchaser to successfully claim ITC. 

Further, after a series of amendments, it is not possible for a purchaser to claim ITC unless the seller has filed their GST returns indicating the supplies on which the purchaser can claim ITC.[2] Linking the ITC claims to seller’s returns certainly seems to make the co-operation of purchaser and seller necessary to claim ITC.  However, in my view, the statutory provisions do not decisively attribute liability in case of seller’s inability or failure to deposit the tax.  

In M/s D.Y. Beathel Enterprises[3], a case decided under Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (pari materia with CGST Act, 2017), the Madras High Court ‘did not appreciate’, the approach of the Revenue whereby they reversed ITC of the purchaser while not initiating any recovery action against the seller for not depositing the tax. The High Court observed that inquiry against the seller was necessary since the State made claim that there was no movement of goods. The High Court held that if the State does not receive the tax, liability has to be borne by one party – seller or buyer, but it did not specifically state which party must bear the burden. And it remanded the matter back to the Revenue Department directing initiation of fresh inquiry against both the purchaser and seller. 

The Madras High Court’s decision cannot be treated as precedent under GST for all kinds of fact situations and the final word on the issue is yet to be spoken. Also, the High Court did not conclusively attribute liability to one party but directed action against both – purchaser and seller. And if the Supreme Court’s interpretive approach under KVAT, 2003 is any indication, the purchasers are unlikely to find it easy to claim ITC under GST or are likely to get their ITC reversed if the seller defaults or delays filing of their returns or otherwise does not deposit tax with the State. If and when the liability will be attached to purchaser due to the conduct of the seller is currently an open question.        

[1] State of Karnataka v M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited 2023 SCC OnLine SC 248. 

[2] Section 16(2) and Section 38 of CGST Act, 2017 were amended via the Finance Act, 2022 with the result that the purchasing dealer is dependent on the supplier furnishing its GSTR-1. 

[3] M/s D.Y. Beathel Enterprises v State Tax Officer 2021-VIL-308-MAD. 

e-Commerce Operators Constitute a Distinct Category Under GST

by

In a notable judgment[1] delivered on 12 April 2023, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court opined that e-commerce operators (‘ECOs’) are a distinct category under CGST Act, 2017, opening interesting possibilities for future of e-commerce under the aegis of GST. The subject of challenge were two Notifications issued by the Union of India which withdrew GST exemption for passenger transportation services provided by auto-rickshaws mediated by ECOs. However, the same services provided by auto-rickshaws without mediation of ECOs continued to be exempt from GST.  

Arguments

The petitioners – which included Uber India and Pragatisheel Auto Rickshaw Driver Union – based their challenge on the following grounds:

first, the petitioners argued that the impugned Notifications were discriminatory as equally placed service providers were put in an unequal position in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that giving differential tax treatment to the same services based on the mode through which they were availed – offline versus online – lacked an intelligible differentia and was discriminatory against ECOs; second, the petitioners developed the Article 14 argument indirectly to state that the levy of GST must be based on the service and not on the medium used to avail the service; third, the petitioners argued that merely because ECOs had the (financial) ability to comply with GST obligations could not be a ground to levy tax on services offered via them; fourth, the petitioners argued that levy of GST would increase cost of transportation services provided through ECOs, which in turn would threaten the livelihood of auto rickshaw drivers which violated Article 19(1(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution.

The State argued that the distinction between services mediated by ECOs and without ECOs was valid since the ECOs were able to deploy their technology to provide value-added services to consumers which were not available if a person hailed auto-rickshaws on the roadside. Further, the State emphasised that both service providers were not equally placed: the tax exemption was given to auto-rickshaw drivers was because they possessed limited means to meet GST compliance requirements, while ECOs had the resources to meet such burdens. The State further defended the Notifications on the ground that it possessed wide leeway in enacting tax laws, and it could validly exercise its discretion to levy tax on certain transactions while providing tax exemption to others.   

Decision

The Delhi High Court agreed with the State and upheld the Notifications as valid and held that they were in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. The five core observations of the Delhi High Court are below:

First, based on a combined reading of Section 9(5), Section 24(ix) and Section 52, the Delhi High Court opined that the CGST Act, 2017 itself treats ECOs as a separate category. Section 9(5) provides that:

The Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify categories of services the tax on intra-State supplies of which shall be paid by the electronic commerce operator if such services are supplied through it, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such electronic commerce operator as if he is the supplier liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such services:   

Section 24(ix) requires that it shall be compulsory for every person to register under GST if he supplies goods or services or both through an ECO who is required to collect tax at source under Section 52. And Section 52 in turn provides that every ECO shall collect an amount not exceeding one per cent, of net value of taxable supplies made through it by other suppliers.

The Delhi High Court noted that Section 9(5) gives effect to a deeming fiction that an ECO is considered a supplier even when it is not making the supply, and under Section 52 an ECO is required to collect tax at source ‘even when the individual supplier itself is otherwise exempt from taxation as is evident from Section 24(ix) of the Act of 2017.’ (para 15.2) Though it would have been apposite to make a reference to Section 24(x) too, which prescribes compulsory registration for every ECO required to collect tax at source under Section 52. Based on the above, the High Court concluded that ECOs are a class distinct from individual suppliers. The High Court also referred to other Notifications under which supplies – such as those relating to hotel accommodation – made through ECOs were made taxable while they continued to be exempt if provided without mediation of ECOs.  

Second, as a corollary to the above observation, the Delhi High Court held that ECOs seeking parity with individual auto-rickshaw drivers were seeking equality amongst unequals. The High Court noted that rides booked through ECOs provided value added services such as: auto-rickshaw picking the consumer from his/her doorstep, ability to track the ride, multiple payment options, etc. The High Court highlighted the ability of ECOs to deploy technological and logistical capabilities to conclude that they were not similarly placed as individual suppliers. The High Court observed that while the quality of the physical ride does not differ if an auto-rickshaw is booked through ECO, the latter offered additional services which was a distinguishing factor.   

Third, the Delhi High Court found that the differentiation had a rational nexus with the object of CGST Act, 2017. The High Court endorsed the State’s argument that the object of CGST Act, 2017 was to levy tax on ‘every’ transaction of supply of goods and services. The Delhi High Court interpreting the objective of GST in such wide terms is not based on sound analysis and in fact it unjustly endorses GST as solely a revenue generating legislative instrument, not leaving room for any other policy objective. While a tax law is primarily a revenue generating mechanism, a welfare state does not and should not use it only for the said purpose, as various other policy objectives are also sought to be accomplished via tax laws.     

Fourth, the Delhi High Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the differentiation was only based on ‘mode’ of booking. The High Court observed, and correctly so, that the ECOs were not merely offering a ‘mode’ of booking. The High Court observed that the relationship of ECOs with both consumers and vendors/drivers was on a principal-to-principal basis. ECOs were charging commission from registered vendors and convenience charges from consumers. And in case of cancellation of rides, refunds, etc. ECOs were in fact stepping into shoes of a service provider and not just acting as an agent of service provider nor were they merely providing a ‘mode’ or a platform for booking the services.  

Fifth, the Delhi High Court negatived petitioner’s argument for continued GST exemption on the ground that the petitioner had no continued right to tax exemption. This was an endorsement of the States’ argument that it had wide leeway to enact tax laws. Also, as per the High Court, there was no constitutional guarantee or statutory entitlement to a continued exemption from payment of tax. While the High Court justified its conclusion by referring to the State’s right to levy tax, it was an inevitable conclusion once the High Court had endorsed the State’s argument that the purpose of CGST Act, 2017 was to levy tax on ‘every’ transaction of supply of goods and services. 

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s judgment is on defensible ground in so far as it reasons that ECOs constitute a separate category under CGST Act, 2017, though it could have been better articulated. Nonetheless, the Delhi High Court’s views could be used by the Revenue Department for various purposes: to prevent tax evasion, ensure greater transparency in e-commerce transactions, and otherwise collect revenue on transactions that may not be exigible to GST when undertaken solely via physical mode. See, for example, the following observation of the Delhi High Court:

The intent of Section 9(5) is to plug leaks in collection of GST and therefore, the Respondent is empowered under the said section to consolidate the liability to collect and pay tax for the services supplied through ECO. This is also evident from the provision of Section 52 of the Act of 2017. (para 17.6)

The Delhi High Court’s view that Section 9(5) of CGST Act, 2017 is an anti-tax evasion provision, will further empower the Revenue Department to impose additional obligations on ECOs. Not to mention, it is also helpful to the Revenue Department that the Delhi High Court has noted that ECOs are not comparable with individual suppliers, limiting the success of Article 14-based challenges to such measures.

Lastly, a vital sub-text of the Delhi High Court’s decision is that a taxable person possessing the financial ability to comply with GST obligations can be a valid ground of differentiation in certain circumstances. The State expressly argued that ECOs were subject to GST because they possessed the financial ability to adhere to additional obligations, which was impliedly endorsed by the Court. This opens the possibility for imposing additional GST compliance obligations on certain taxpayers and differentiating them from other taxpayers based on their ability to comply, though the validity and scope of this dictum will be tested in varied fact situations.      

[1] Uber India Systems Private Limited v Union of India 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2216.

LinkedIn