Holding

The CGST Act’s definition of ‘goods’ including actionable claims, the classification of lottery as an actionable claim, the non‑discriminatory treatment of lottery, betting and gambling, and the inclusion of prize money in the taxable value are all constitutionally valid; the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt. Ltd., an authorised agent for Punjab lotteries, filed a writ petition under Art.32 challenging the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) on the grounds that the definition of ‘goods’ in s.2(52) – which includes actionable claims – is unconstitutional and that taxing lottery, betting and gambling while exempting other actionable claims violates Art.14. The Court first held the petition maintainable under Art.32. It then examined the legal meaning of ‘goods’ under Art.366(12) of the Constitution, the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and the CGST Act, concluding that the inclusive definition does not exclude actionable claims and is consistent with constitutional provisions. The Court affirmed that the Constitution Bench in Sunrise Associates categorically held lottery to be an actionable claim, rejecting the claim that this was obiter. It further found no hostile discrimination in Item No.6 of Schedule III, as the three categories have a rational basis rooted in long‑standing regulation. Finally, the Court held that prize money cannot be excluded from the taxable value of a lottery ticket under s.15 and Rule 31A, and dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge later notifications separately.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Art.32 of the Constitution.
Whether the inclusion of actionable claim in the definition of ‘goods’ under s.2(52) of the CGST Act, 2017 is contrary to the legal meaning of goods and unconstitutional.
Whether the Sunrise Associates judgment laid down that lottery is an actionable claim as a binding proposition of law.
Whether the exclusion of lottery, betting and gambling from Item No.6 of Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017 amounts to hostile discrimination violating Art.14.
Whether prize money should be excluded while determining the face value of lottery tickets for GST liability.

Legislation cited

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017s. 15, s. 2(1), s. 2(52)
Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017s. Rule 31A
Constitution (Forty‑sixth Amendment) Act, 1982s. Art.366(29A)
Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.246A, s. Art.32, s. Art.366(12)
Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016
Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998s. 2(b)
Sale of Goods Act, 1930s. 2(7)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 3

Subjects

GSTactionable claimdefinition of goodsArticle 14discriminationlotterytax valuationArticle 32constitutional challengetaxation policy

Judgment

[2020] 13 S.C.R. 151 151

SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Peition (Civil) No. 961 of 2018)
DECEMBER 03, 2020 B
[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
C
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
D
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 E
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
F
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 G
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
H
151
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G – 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,
it cannot be said that there was no rationale or reason for taxing
the three and leaving others – Constitution of India – Art.14.
H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 153
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: s.15 – Whether A
while determining the face value of the lottery tickets for levy of
GST, prize money is to be excluded for purposes of levy of GST –
Held: The value of taxable supply is a matter of statutory regulation
and when the value is to be transaction value which is to be
determined as per s.15, it is not permissible to compute the value of
B
taxable supply by excluding prize which has been contemplated in
the statutory scheme – Central Goods and Services Tax Rules –
r.31A.
Interpretation of statutes: Whenever inclusive definition is
given of an expression it is intended to enlarge the meaning of words
or phrases, used in the definition – Central Goods and Services C
Tax, 2017.
Judicial review: Taxation policy – With regard to taxing policy
of the legislature, the Courts have very limited role to play.
Dissmissing of the writ petition, the Court D
HELD: 1. Maintainability of Art.32: Article 32 confers a
right to move to Supreme Court for enforcement of the right
conferred by the Part III, which is guaranteed by sub-article (1)
of Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 is an important and
integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Article 32 E
is meant to ensure observance of rule of law. Article 32 provides
for the enforcement of the fundamental rights, which is most
potent weapon. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged
the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 insofar
as it imposes tax on the lottery. The grounds of challenge include
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The levy of F
GST has been attacked as discriminatory. It is also submitted
that there is a hostile discrimination in taxing only lottery, betting
and gambling whereas leaving all other actionable claims from
the taxing net as is evident by entry 6 of Schedule III of Act,
2017. The writ petition alleging the violation of Article 14 specially G
with respect to a parliamentary Act can very well be entertained
under Article 32. [Paras 14, 15, 16][168-B-G]
H. Anraj and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 2
SCC 292 : [1984] 2 SCR 440; H. Anraj v. Government
H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A of Tamil Nadu, (1986) 1 SCC 414: [1985] 3 Suppl. SCR
342 – referred to.
Whether the inclusion of actionable claim in the definition
of goods as given in Section 2(52) of Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 is contrary to the legal meaning of goods and
B unconstitutional?
Whether the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court 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?
C
2.1 Article 366 sub-clause (12) defines goods. Goods
includes all materials, commodities, and articles. Definition of
goods as occurring in Article 366(12) is inclusive definition and
does not specifically excludes actionable claim from its definition.
Whenever inclusive definition is given of an expression it always
D intended 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 Section 2(7) is every kind of movable property other
than actionable claims and money; whereas definition of goods in
Section 2(52) in the Act, 2017 is every kind of movable property
E other than money and securities “but includes actionable claim”.
The Constitution framers were well 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 Article 366(12), the Constitution framers never
intended to give any restrictive meaning of goods. [Paras 20, 24,
F 33, 34][169-G-H; 170-A-B; 175-E-F; 170-F-G; 176-C]
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and
Investment co.Ltd. And others, 1987(1) SCC 424: [1987]
2 SCR 1 – followed
State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co., (Madras)
G Ltd., [1959] SCR 329; M/s Gannon Dunkerley and Co.
and Others v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1993 (1)
SCC 364 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 103 – held
inapplicable
2.2 It cannot be said that the question as to whether lottery
H is a goods or actionable claim had not arisen in the decision in
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 155
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Sunrise Associates. When an item was covered by excluded A
category, the said conclusion could have been arisen only after
consideration of the definition and the exclusionary clause. The
Constitution Bench in Sunrise Associates has categorically held
that lottery is actionable claim after due consideration which is
ratio of the judgment. [Para 48][182-D-F]
B
Sunrise Associates v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
(2006) 5 SCC 603:[2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 421 –
Explained
2.3 Article 366(12) contains an inclusive definition and the
definition given in Section 2(52) of Act, 2017 is not in conflict
with definition given in Article 366(12). The Parliament by the C
Constitution(One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016
inserted Article 246A, a special provision with respect to goods
and services tax. The Parliament was fully empowered to make
laws with respect to goods and services tax. Article 246A begins
with non obstante clause that is “Notwithstanding anything
D
contained in Articles 246 and 254”, which confers very wide power
to make laws. The power to make laws as conferred by Article
246A fully empowers the Parliament to make laws with respect
to goods and services tax and expansive definition of goods given
in Section 2(52) cannot be said to be not in accord with the
constitutional provisions. There has to be a rational connection E
between the item taxed but it is well settled that with regard to
taxing policy of the legislature, the Courts have very limited role
to play. Article 246A is a special provision with regard to goods
and services tax w.e.f. 16.09.2016, which special power has to be
liberally construed empowering the Parliament to make laws with
respect to goods and services tax. [Paras 49, 57, 58][182-G-H; F
183-A-C; 186-C-D; 186-F-G]
Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen, Appellate, Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax, [1965] 1 SCR 909; State
of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala and Anr., AIR
1957 SC 699: [1957] SCR 874 – relied on. G
Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., M.P. and Anr. v. D.P.
Dube, Sales Tax Officer and Anr., [1964] 1 SCR 481;M/
s. Gannon Dunkerley and co. and others v. State of
Rajasthan and others, 1993 (1) SCC 364:[1992]
3 Suppl. SCR 103 – distinguished.
H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A 2.4 The Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunrise
Associates has held that actionable claims are includible in the
definition of goods and had actionable claims were not includible,
there was no need for excluding them. In other words, actionable
claims are “goods” but not for the purpose of Sales Tax Acts and
but for this statutory exclusion, an actionable claim would be
B
“goods” or the subject-matter of ownership”. Thus, in view of
what has been said above by the Constitution Bench, the
submission of the petitioner that actionable claims have been
artificially included in the definition of goods cannot be accepted.
The Constitution Bench has clearly laid down that actionable
C claims are goods. Thus, Parliament has not exceeded its
jurisdiction in including actionable claims in the definition of
“goods” under Section 2(52). [Paras 58, 59][186-G-H; 187-A-C]
Whether exclusion of lottery, betting and gambling from
Item No.6 Schedule III of Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
D 2017 is hostile discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India?
3. Schedule III begins with heading “activities or
transactions which shall be treated neither as supply of goods
nor supply of services. Item No.6 of Schedule III is as follows:-
E ”Item No.6 – Actionable claims other than lottery, betting and
gambling.” Lottery, betting and gambling are well known concepts
and have been in practice in this country since before
independence and were regulated and taxed by different
legislations. When Act, 2017 defines the goods to include
actionable claims and included only three categories of actionable
F 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 last
G several decades. When the parliament has included above three
for purpose of imposing GST and not taxed other actionable
claims, it cannot be said that there is no rationale or reason for
taxing above three and leaving others. Hence, there is no
violation of Article 14 in Item No. 6 of Schedule III of the Act,
2017. [Paras 63, 70, 71][187-F-G; 191-B-D; 191-G]
H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 157
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Whether while determining the face value of the lottery A
tickets for levy of GST, prize money is to be excluded for purposes
of levy of GST?
4.1 The Rules have been framed, namely, the Central Goods
and Services Tax Rules, 2017 in which Rules by notification dated
23.01.2018 Rule 31A has been inserted dealing with value of B
supply in case of lottery, betting, gambling and horse racing. For
determining the value of the lottery, now, there is statutory
provision contained in Section 15 read with Rule 31A. Section 15
of the Act, 2017 by sub-section (2) it is provided what shall be
included in the value of supply. What can be included in the value
is enumerated in sub-clause (a) to (e) of sub-section (2) of Section C
15. Further, sub-section (3) of Section 15 provides that what shall
not be included in the value of the supply. When there are specific
statutory provisions enumerating what should be included in the
value of the supply and what shall not be included in the value of
the supply, the submission of the petitioner that prize money is D
to be abated for determining the value of taxable supply cannot
be accepted. What is the value of taxable supply is subject to the
statutory provision which clearly regulates, which provision has
to be given its full effect and something which is not required to
be excluded in the value of taxable supply cannot be added by
judicial interpretation. Further, Rule 31A, sub-rule (2) as amended E
clearly provides that value of supply shall be deemed to be
100/128 of the face value of ticket or of the prize as notified in
the Official Gazette by the Organising State, whichever is higher.
[Paras 74, 78, 79][194-D-E; 196-A-D; 196-D-E]
4.2 The value of taxable supply is a matter of statutory F
regulation and when the value is to be transaction value which is
to be determined as per Section 15, it is not permissible to
compute the value of taxable supply by excluding prize which has
been contemplated in the statutory scheme. When prize paid by
the distributor/agent is not contemplated to be excluded from G
the value of taxable supply, the submission of the petitioner that
prize money should be excluded for computing the taxable value
of supply is not accepted. Thus, while determining the taxable
value of supply the prize money is not to be excluded for the
purpose of levy of GST. When the levy of GST, determination of
H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A taxable value are governed by the Parliamentary Act in this
country, legislative scheme of other countries may not be relevant
for determining the issue which has been raised. The taxing policy
and the taxing statute of various countries are different which
are in accordance with taxing regime suitable and applicable in
different countries. The issue which has been raised has to be
B
answered by looking into the statutory provisions of the Act, 2017
and the Rules framed therein which govern the field. Thus, the
petitioner is not entitled to reliefs as claimed in the writ petition.
[Paras 80, 81, 82][196-F-H; 197-A; 197-B-D; 197-D-E]
The State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley &
C Co.(Madras) Ltd., [1959] SCR 379; Builders’
Association of India v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC
645 : [1989] 2 SCR 320; H. Anraj and Ors. v.
Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (1986) 1 SCC
424 : [1985] 3 Suppl. SCR 342; Sunrise Associates v.
D Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, 2010 (10) SCC 420:
Vikas Sales Corporation and another v. Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes and another, (1996) 4 SCC 433
[1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 204; Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Gurnam Kau, 1989 (1) SCC 101 : [1988] 2
Suppl. SCR 929; Navinchandra Mafatlal Bombay v.
E Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, AIR 1955
SC 58:[1955] SCR 829; Sri Krishna Das v. Town Area
Committee, Chirgaon, (1990) 3 SCC 645; State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors. v. Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemical
Corporation Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 342 : [2007] 6 SCR
F 525; Union of India and Ors. v. Martin Lottery Agencies
Limited, (2009) 12 SCC 209 : [2009] 7 SCR 946;
Ayurveda Pharmacy and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu,
(1989) 2 SCC 285: [1989] 2 SCR 37 – referred to
Case Law Reference
G [1959] SCR 329 held inapplicable Para 4
[1984] 2 SCR 440 referred to Para 16
[1985] 3 Suppl. SCR 342 referred to Para 16
[1959] SCR 379 held inapplicable Para 25
H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 159
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

[1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 103 distinguished Para 32 A
[1989] 2 SCR 320 referred to Para 32
[1987] 2 SCR 1 followed Para 33
[2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 421 explained Para 38
[1985] 3 Suppl. SCR 342 referred to Para 38 B
(2010) 10 SCC 420 referred to Para 38
[1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 204 referred to Para 41
[1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 929 referred to Para 47
C
[1964] 1 SCR 481 distinguished Para 50
[1955] SCR 829 referred to Para 53
[1965] 1 SCR 909 relied on Para 55
(1990) 3 SCC 645 referred to Para 57
D
[1989] 2 SCR 37 referred to Para 64
[2007] 6 SCR 525 referred to Para 65
[1957] SCR 874 relied on Para 68
[2009] 7 SCR 946 referred to Para 69
E
[1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 103 held inapplicable Para 72
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Retition (Civil) No.
961 OF 2018
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Ravindra Shrivastava, C.A. Sundaram, F
Sr. Advs., Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Garima Tiwari, Arpit Jain,
Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Bhuvan Mishra, B. Krishna
Prasad, Karan Bharihoke, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Geo Joseph, Ms.
Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Rohini Musa, Abhishek Gupta, Zaffar
Inayat, Advs. for the appearing parties.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
The petitioner, an authorized agent, for sale and distribution of
lotteries organized by State of Punjab has filed this writ petition impugning
H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A the definition of goods under Section 2(52) of Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 and consequential notifications to the extent it levies tax
on lotteries. The petitioner seeks declaration that the levy of tax on lottery
is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301 and 304 of
the Constitution of India.
B 2. We need to notice certain background facts which has given
rise to this writ petition.
2.1 The Parliament enacted the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998
to regulate the lotteries and to provide for matters connected therewith
and incidental thereto. Section 2(b) of the Act defines lottery which
C provides that “lottery” means a scheme, in whatever form and by
whatever name called, for distribution of prizes by lot or chance to those
persons participating in the chances of a prize by purchasing tickets.
Section 4 provides that a State Government may organise, conduct or
promote the lottery subject to conditions enumerate therein. Different
States have been organizing and conducting lotteries in accordance with
D the aforesaid Act. It is to be noted that prior to parliamentary enactment
for regulating the lotteries, different States have enacted legislation
regulating the lotteries which were the legislations even prior to the
enforcement of the Constitution, levying tax on the sale of lottery tickets.
Reference is made to Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 and Madras
E General Sales Tax Act, 1939. Another Statute to be noticed is Bombay
Lotteries (Control and Tax) and Prize Competitions (Tax) Act, 1958.
2.2 There has been a series of litigation regarding taxability of
lottery tickets and this Court had occasion to deliver several judgments
on the subject which we shall notice hereinafter. Service tax was levied
F on lottery tickets by Finance Act, 1994. A Circular dated 14/21.2.2017
was also issued providing for mode of determination of the amount of
service tax. Rules were also framed namely Lotteries (Regulation) Rules,
2010 by the Central Government containing a set of rules for regulation
of the lotteries organized by the States.
G 2.3 By Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act,
2016, Article 246A was inserted in the Constitution containing special
provisions with respect to Goods and Services Tax. Article 269A and
Article 279A were also inserted by same constitutional amendment.
Article 279A provided for constitution of Goods and Services Tax Council.
The Parliament enacted the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 161
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

(Act No.12 of 2017) to make provisions for levy and collection of tax on A
intra-State supply of goods or services or both by the Central Government
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act came
into force w.e.f. 12.04.2017. The Parliament also enacted the Integrated
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act No.13 of 2017), the Union
Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act No.14 of 2017) and
B
the Goods and Services Tax (compensation to States) Act, 2017 (Act
No.15 of 2017).
2.4 Under Section 2(52) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017, the term “goods” has been defined which provides that “goods”
means every kind of movable property other than money and securities
but includes actionable claim……………. Chapter III of the Act provides C
for levy and collection of tax. Section 15 deals with value of taxable
supply. After the enactment of Act No.12 of 2017, Notification was
issued by Government of India dated 28.06.2017 in exercise of power
conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 9 notifying the rate of the
integrated tax. By the notification dated 28.06.2017 with regard to lottery D
run by the State Government, value of supply of lottery was deemed to
be 100/112 of the face value of the ticket or the prize as notified in the
official gazette of the organising State, whichever is higher. With regard
to lotteries authorised by the State Government value of supply of lottery
was deemed to be 100/128.
E
2.5 The writ petitioner, an authorised agent for the state of Punjab
for sale and distribution of lotteries organised by State of Punjab aggrieved
by the provisions of Act No.12 of 2017 as well as notifications issued
therein filed the present writ petition praying for following reliefs:-
“a) By appropriate writ, order or direction, quash and set aside F
the definition of ‘Goods’ under Section 2(52) of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Annexure P-18 (Pg.141
to 143)], Impugned Notifications 01/2017 Central Tax
(Rate), 01/2017 [Annexure P-19 (Pg.144 to 148)], Integrated
Tax (Rate), 01/201 [Annexure P-20 (Pg. 149 to 154)], and
the State rate Notifications of the Respondent State of G
Punjab [Annexure P-21(Pg.155 to 157)] to the extent it
levies tax on Lottery by declaring the same to be
discriminatory and violative of Article 49, (19)(1)(g), 301,
304 of the Constitution of India and of the CGST, SGST
and IGST Act. H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A b) In the Alternative, by appropriate writ, order or direction
quash and set aside the impugned Notifications 01/2017
Central Tax (Rate), 01/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) 01/2017
and the State rate Notification of the Respondent State of
Punjab to the extent it levies tax on the face value of the
lottery ticket without abating the prize money Component
B
of the lottery ticket when the said amount never forms part
of the income of the Petitioner or the lottery trade.
c) In the Alternative, by appropriate writ, order or direction
quash and set aside the Impugned Notifications 01/2017
Central Tax (Rate), 01/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) 01/2017
C and the State rate Notification of the Respondent State of
Punjab to the extent it levies two different rates on tax on
the face value of the lottery ticket and declare that the
Respondents can levy an uniform rate of 12% Tax on Lottery
irrespective of place where it is being sold, and after
D adjusting the prize money component from the face value
of lottery tickets.”
3. We have heard Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner and Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor
General for the Union of India. We have also heard Shri C.A. Sundaram,
E learned senior counsel for the intervenor.
4. Shri Shrivastava submits that lottery is not a goods and under
the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, GST is levied only on
goods, hence levy of GST on lottery is ultra vires to the Constitution. It
is further submitted that the Constitution Article 366 sub-article (12)
F define goods to include all materials, commodities and articles.The
definition in the Constitution exclude actionable claims since it only refers
to materials, commodities and articles. The definition of goods given in
Section 2(52) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as “Act, 2017”) is unconstitutional. It is further submitted
that Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunrise Associates vs. Govt.
G of NCT of Delhi and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 603 has categorically held
that lottery is not a good. When Constitution Bench has held that lottery
is not a good, the provisions of Act, 2017 treating the lottery as goods is
contrary to the judgement of Constitution Bench in Sunrise Associates
(supra). The lottery is not an actionable claim as is now sought to be
H included in the definition of goods given in Section 2(52). The provisions
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 163
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

of Act, 2017 are self-contradictory in as much as the definition of A
actionable claim is as per definition of Transfer of Property Act, which
is only the claim and not the goods. Further, under the definition of goods,
actionable claims have been included as goods under
Section 2(52). It is further submitted that GST is being levied on the
face value of the lottery tickets which is impermissible since the face
B
value of the tickets also includes prize money to be reimbursed to the
winners of the lottery tickets. Learned senior Counsel submits that
meaning of goods as occurring in the Constitution of India has to be
taken in its legal sense. The definition of goods as occurring in Sale of
Goods Act, 1930 clearly excludes actionable claims from the definition
of goods, which definition has been held to be definition of goods under C
the Constitution by this Court in State of Madras vs. Gannon
Dunkerley & Co., (Madras) Ltd., (1959) SCR 329. The attempt of
including the actionable claim within the meaning of goods seems to be
deliberate attempt to make the lottery fall within the scope of GST which
would render the definition of goods contrary to the meaning ascribed to
D
it by the Constitution of India as held by Gannon Dunkerley (supra).
The words defined in the Constitution of India will have to be ascribed
their legal meaning and not the popular meaning.
5. Shri Shrivastava further submits that the Parliament does not
enjoy an absolute power to make an inclusive definition of something to
be taxed which is not taxable otherwise. There is no absolute power E
with the legislature to define something. If such definition has no rationale,
such artificial definition cannot be treated only for the purpose of assuming
taxation power. Shri Shrivastava further submits that taxing actionable
claim only is discriminatory since all actionable claims are not being
taxed. Shri Shrivastava submits that according to Schedule III to the F
Act, 2017 under Item No.6 actionable claims other than lottery, betting
and gambling have been treated neither as supply of goods nor supply of
services. There is a clear hostile discrimination in taxing only lottery,
betting and gambling whereas all other actionable claims have been left
out of the taxing net. Shri Shrivastava has further submitted that the
observations made in the judgment of Constitution Bench in Sunrise G
Associates (supra) that lotteries are actionable claims are only obiter
dicta and cannot be treated to be ratio of the judgment.
6. Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General
refuting the submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner at
H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A the very outset submits that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner
under Article 32 is not maintainable. It is submitted that lottery is “res
extra commercium” and no right under Article 19(1)(g) and
Article 301 can be claimed by the petitioner with regard to lottery. The
transaction of lottery tickets cannot be raised to the status of trade,
commerce or intercourse. There is no right with the petitioner which
B
can be enforced by writ petition filed under article 32 of the Constitution,
hence, the writ petition being not maintainable deserves to be dismissed.
Mr. Banerjee further submits that the laws relating to economic activity
need to be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights.
He further submits that courts are loath to interfere with taxing policies
C of the States. The fact of not levying tax on other actionable claims
apart from lottery, betting and gambling cannot be said to be
discriminatory. It is submitted that Constitution Bench of this court in
Sunrise Associates (supra) has held that an actionable claim is a
movable property and goods in the wider sense. The definition of goods
given in Section 2(52) of Act 2017 is in accord with the Constitution
D
Bench judgment of this court in Sunrise Associates (supra) and the
argument that definition of goods given in Section 2(52) is contrary to
above Constitution Bench judgment in Sunrise Associates (supra) is
misplaced. The definition of goods given under Article 366(12) of the
Constitution is an inclusive definition. Article 366 (12A) defines goods
E and services tax to mean tax on supply of goods or services or both
except taxes on the supply of alcoholic liquor for human consumption.
Lottery having been judicially held to be an actionable claim is covered
within the meaning of term goods under section 2(52). The Union
Parliament has the competence to levy GST on lotteries under article
246A of the Constitution. Under Article 279A the GST Council has
F
approved the levy of GST on lottery tickets, hence, the inclusion of
actionable claims in the definition of goods under section 2(52) is in
keeping with the legislative and taxing policy. It is well settled that courts
would not review the wisdom or advisability or expediency of a tax.
The levy on face value is authorised by section 15(1) read with section
G 15(5) of the Act, 2017 and Rule 31(A) of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Rules, 2017. The levy of 28% tax on face value is neither
discriminatory nor beyond the taxing policy/powers of the State.
7. Shri Banerjee further submits that during pendency of the writ
petition, Rule 31A has been amended vide notification dated 02.03.2020
H merging earlier two separate rates, i.e., regarding value of supply of
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 165
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

lottery run by the State Government, which was earlier 100/112 and A
value of supply of lottery authorised by the State Government, which
was 100/128 has been made uniform and by virtue of Rule 31A
sub-rule(2), value of supply of lottery is one and the same, i.e., 100/128
of the face value of the ticket or prize as notified by the organising State,
whichever is higher. He submits that in view of the above amendment
B
dated 02.03.2020, which is not challenged in the present writ petition,
the argument on the ground of discrimination in the rate of tax is no
longer available to the petitioner. Shri Banerjee further submits that
judgment of this Court in State of Madras Vs. Gannon Dunkerley
(supra) relied by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is not attracted
in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the above decision C
dealt with the definition of term “sale” and was not concerned with the
interpretation of “goods”.
8. Shri Sundaram appearing for the intervenor submits that the
Constitution permits tax on goods and actionable claims being not taxed
under the Constitution, the Parliament cannot have the power of taxing D
lottery. The taxing power of legislature is traceable to the Constitution
alone. It is not open to the legislature to enlarge its taxing power. The
word “goods” is not a new word and is a concept well known in the
Constitution. Legislature cannot tax something which is constitutionally
not goods. The Act, 2017 cannot include something that was not part of
the definition as provided for in the Constitution. The definition of goods E
under the GST Act would necessarily have to be guided by the definition
of goods given under the Constitution. Shri Sundaram further submits
that in any event, the prize money in a lottery deducted from a lottery
claim ought not to be taxed at all and the tax, if at all ought to be levied
only on the invoice value, i.e., the transaction value of the lottery ticket F
or the lottery scheme after deducting the prize money. The lottery ticket
has a zero value and is only a chance, which cannot be taxed. Shri
Sundaram submits that lottery ticket is not even an actionable claim but
only a chance, which is treated as an actionable claim by ratio of
Constitution Bench judgment in Sunrise Associates (supra), which
will not be a good within the meaning of Article 366 (12) of the G
Constitution. He submits that since it is not a good under the Constitution,
Union and the States had no right to tax. A Statute cannot bring in a
definition something as good, which Constitution itself excludes. Exclusion
of all actionable claims from levy of GST except three, i.e., lottery, betting
and gambling is nothing but hostile discrimination. Shri Sundaram submits H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A that when the lottery is being permitted by the States, it is a commercial
activity. When the State itself organise a lottery, it is not pernicious. No
reason is forthcoming as to why only three actionable claims are taxed
leaving all others out of tax net.
9. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava in his rejoinder submits that he is not
B claiming any violation of right under Article 19(1)(g) or Article 301. He
submits that writ petition is fully maintainable under Article 32 of the
Constitution. A Parliamentary enactment on ground of violation of Article
14 is sought to be challenged in the writ petition, which writ petition is
fully maintainable. Shri Shrivastava questions the legislative competence
of Parliament to tax lottery as goods. Shri Shrivastava submits that he
C has placed reliance on the principle, which has been laid down by this
Court in Gannon Dunkerley (supra). This court in Gannon Dunkerley
(supra) laid down that definition of goods has to be taken as it is meant
under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which definition is also to be taken
for the purposes of Article 366(12) of the Constitution. Goods has to be
D interpreted in its legal sense. Goods cannot be defined in an artificial
manner as has been done by the Parliament in Section 2(52). Shri
Shrivastava submits that inclusive definition cannot be expansive and
unrealistic. He submits that there is no similarity in goods and actionable
claims. There cannot be artificial expansion of definition of goods. He
submits that lottery acquires property only when prize is declared. A
E ticket is only a chance and GST is levied on every sale of lottery ticket,
which is not permissible since it is not an actionable claim.
10. He reiterated his challenge on the ground of hostile
discrimination with regard to only three categories of actionable claims,
i.e., lottery, betting and gambling whereas all other actionable claims are
F not being taxed under Act, 2017. He submits that taxing only three items
has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. No rationale has
been provided by the respondent. If actionable claim is a homogeneous
clause, why only three have been picked out. Lottery is not something
pernicious. Relying on earlier circular dated 14.02.2017, Shri Shrivastava
G submits that prize money has to be excluded from face value. Shri
Shrivastava further submits that lottery is held all across the world and
in other countries, GST is levied by excluding the prize money. Shri
Shrivastava has lastly submitted that notification, which has been issued
during pendency of the writ petition now providing a uniform rate of
lotteries organised by the States or authorised by the State having not
H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 167
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

been challenged in this writ petition, hence, petitioner reserve its right to A
challenge the notification dated 21.02.2020/02.03.2020 separately in
appropriate proceedings.
11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the records.
12. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties B
and materials on the record, following are the questions which arise for
consideration in this writ petition:-
(I) Whether the writ petition is not maintainable under Article
32 of the Constitution of India since the writ petition relates
to lottery, which is res extra commercium and the petitioner C
cannot claim protection under Article 19(1)(g)?
(II) Whether the inclusion of actionable claim in the definition
of goods as given in Section 2(52) of Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 is contrary to the legal meaning of
goods and unconstitutional? D
(III) Whether the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in
Sunrise Associates (supra) 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 E
of law?
(IV) Whether exclusion of lottery, betting and gambling from
Item No.6 Schedule III of Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 is hostile discrimination and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India? F
(V) Whether while determining the face value of the lottery
tickets for levy of GST, prize money is to be excluded for
purposes of levy of GST?
Question No. I
G
13. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that petitioner,
who is an authorised agent on behalf of the State of Punjab for the
lotteries organised by the State of Punjab cannot complain violation of
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and lottery being a res extra
commercium, the writ petition cannot be entertained. He submits that
H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business does not extend to practicing a profession or carrying on an
occupation, trade or business which is inherently vicious and pernicious.
Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that he is not claiming any violation of right under
Article 19(1)(g) in the writ petition. In view of this submission of the
B
learned senior counsel for the petitioner, we need not consider the writ
petition with reference to violation of Article 19(1)(g).
14. Article 32 confers a right to move to Supreme Court for
enforcement of the right conferred by the Part III, which is guaranteed
by sub-article (1) of Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 is an
C important and integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Article 32 is meant to ensure observance of rule of law. Article 32 provides
for the enforcement of the fundamental rights, which is most potent
weapon. In the Constituent Assembly Debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
speaking about this Article made following statement:-
D “If I was asked to name any particular Article in the Constitution
as most important…………………… an Article without which
the Constitution would be nullity – I could not refer, to any other
Article except this one. It is the very soul of the constitution and
the very heart of it.”
E 15. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the provisions of
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 insofar as it imposes tax on
the lottery. The grounds of challenge include violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. The levy of GST has been attacked as
discriminatory. It is also submitted that there is a hostile discrimination in
F taxing only lottery, betting and gambling whereas leaving all other
actionable claims from the taxing net as is evident by entry 6 of Schedule
III of Act, 2017.
16. The writ petition alleging the violation of Article 14 specially
with respect to a parliamentary Act can very well be entertained under
G Article 32. We may also notice that with regard to the matter of lottery
itself, this Court had entertained a writ petition earlier under Article 32.
Reference is made to judgment of this Court in H. Anraj and Ors. vs.
State of Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCC 292 where the writ petitioner,
who were agents for the sale of tickets for the lottery filed a writ petition
questioning the ban imposed on the sale of lottery tickets within the
H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 169
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

State of Maharashtra. Even judgment of this Court in H. Anraj vs. A
Government of Tamil Nadu, (1986) 1 SCC 414 was also a writ
petition, which was heard alongwith a civil appeal questioning the
leviability of the sales tax by the State Legislature on the sale of lottery
tickets.
17. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that on the grounds, B
which have been raised in the writ petition, the writ petition cannot be
said to be not maintainable under Article 32 and the preliminary objection
made by the learned ASG that the writ petition cannot be entertained
under Article 32 and is overruled.
Question Nos. II and III C
18. Both the above questions being inter-related are taken together.
The question to be considered is as to what is the legal meaning of goods
and whether actionable claim can also be a part of goods. We need to
first notice as to what is the concept of goods.
19. The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 defines goods in Section 2(7) in D
following words:
Section 2. Definitions. In this Act, unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context,—

..... E

(7)”goods” means every kind of movable property other than
actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares,
growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of
the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the
contract of sale;” F
20. Section 311(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 which
has been referred by this Court as Constitution Act defines the goods as
including all materials, commodities and articles. Entry 48 in List II of
Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935 was “Taxes on
the Sale of Goods”. Prior to the enforcement of the Constitution of India G
goods were defined in different provincial legislations. Article 366 of the
Constitution of India contains heading ‘definition’. Article 366 sub-clause
(12) defines goods. Article 366 sub-clause (12) is as follows:

H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A “In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires, the
following expression has, the meaning hereby respectively
assigned to them, that is to say
(12) goods includes all materials, commodities, and articles;”
21. Another expression which we may need to notice is “actionable
B claim”. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which is
interpretation clause defines the actionable claim in following words:
“actionable claim” means a claim to any debt, other than a debt
secured by mortgage of immovable property or by hypothecation
or pledge of movable property, or to any beneficial interest in
C movable property not in the possession, either actual or
constructive, of the claimant, which the Civil Courts recognise as
affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial
interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent;”
22. Now, we may notice the definition of goods in the Central
D Goods of Services Tax Act, 2017 which definition is under challenge in
the present writ petition. Section 2 sub-section (52) defines goods in the
following words:
“Section 2(52)- ”goods” means every kind of movable property
other than money and securities but includes actionable claim,
E growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the
land which are agreed to be severed before supply or under a
contract of supply;”
23. Section 2(1) defines actionable claim in following words:
“Section 2(1) “actionable claim” shall have the same meaning as
F
assigned to it in section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882;”
24. The definition of goods as contained in the Sale of Goods Act,
1930 in Section 2(7) : “goods” means every kind of movable property
other than actionable claims and money; whereas definition of goods in
Section 2(52) in the Act, 2017 while defining goods as every kind of
G movable property other than money and securities “but includes actionable
claim”. We have noted above the various grounds of attack on the
inclusion of actionable claim in the definition of goods under
Section 2(52) as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
first ground of attack of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 171
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

expression goods is well known concept and is also defined in the A
Constitution of India. The definition of goods as meant and understood
in the Constitution of India has to be adopted and not departed by the
Legislature.
25. Shri Srivastava in his usual persuasive style submits that goods
as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is the concept which has been B
held to be applicable with respect to goods as understood in the
Constitution of India also. The Act, 2017 could not have taken any
contrary definition and the contrary definition taken in Section 2(52) of
Act, 2017 is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down. Sheet anchor
of the arguments of Shri Srivastava is the Constitution Bench Judgment
in The State of Madras vs. Gannon Dunkerley & Co.(Madras) C
Ltd., 1959 SCR 379. In the above case this Court had occasion to consider
Entry 48 in List II in Schedule VII of the Government of India Act, 1935
that is “Taxes on the sale of goods”. The Madras General Sales Tax
Act, 1939 was amended by the Madras General Sales Tax (Amendment)
Act, 1947 introducing several new provisions. Section 2(c) of the Act D
had defined “goods” as meaning “all kinds of movable property other
than actionable claims, stocks and shares and securities and as including
all materials, commodities and articles”. The provision was amended
and so as to include materials “used in the construction, fitting out,
improvement or repair of immovable property or in the fitting out,
improvement or repair of movable property”. The definition of “sale” in E
Section 2(h) was also enlarged so as to include “a transfer of property in
goods involved in the execution of a works contract”. The assessing
authorities included in the turnover of respondent the value of the materials
used in construction works which was contested by the respondent on
the ground that power of the Madras Legislature to impose a tax on F
sales under Entry 48 in List II in Schedule VII of the Government of
India Act, does not extend to imposing a tax on the value of materials
used in works, as there is no transaction of sale in respect of those
goods, and the provisions introduced by the Madras General Sales
Tax(Amendment) Act, 1947, authorising the imposition of such tax are
ultra vires. The High Court deciding the question in favour of the G
respondent held that expression sale of goods had the same meaning in
Entry 48 which had in Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The State of Madras
filed an appeal in this Court. The question which fell for consideration in
the above case has been noticed in the judgment in the following words:
H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A “The sole question of determination in this appeal is whether the
provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act are ultra vires,
in so far as they seek to impose a tax on the supply of materials in
execution of works contract treating it as a sale of goods by the
contractor, and the answer to it must depend on the meaning to be
given to the words “sale of goods” in Entry 48 in List II of Schedule
B
VII to the Government of India Act, 1935....”
26. This Court laid down that the expression “sale of goods” in
Entry 48 has to be interpreted in its legal sense. Following observation
was made at page 396:
C ”...We must accordingly hold that the expression “sale of goods”
in Entry 48 cannot be construed in its popular sense, and that it
must be interpreted in its legal sense. What its connotation in that
sense is, must now be ascertained....”
27. This Court at page 404 held:
D “...We think that the true legislative intent is that the expression
“sale of goods” in Entry 48 should bear the precise and definite
meaning it has in law, and that that meaning should not be left to
fluctuate with the definition of “sale” in laws relating to sale of
goods which might be in force for the time being....”
E 28. Interpreting the expression of “sale of goods” at page 413 this
Court held:
“...If the words “sale of goods” have to be interpreted in their
legal sense, that sense can only be what it has in the interpretation
that words of legal import occurring in a statute should be construed
F in their legal sense is that those words have, in law, acquired a
definite and precise sense, and that, accordingly, the legislature
must be taken to have intended that they should be understood in
that sense. In interpreting an expression used in a legal sense,
therefore, we have only to ascertain the precise connotation which
it possesses in law. ...”
G
29. Summing up its conclusion this Court at page 425 held:
“To sum up, the expression “sale of goods” in Entry 48 is a
nomen juris,its essential ingredients being an agreement to sell
movables for a price and property passing therein pursuant to that
H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 173
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

agreement. In a building contract which is, as in the present case, A
one,entire and indivisible-and that is its norm, there is no sale of
goods, and it is not within the competence of the Provincial
Legislature under Entry 48 to impose tax on the supply of the
materials used in such a contract treating it as a sale.”
30. We may also notice the following pertinent observation made B
by this Court in the above case at page 426:
“....It is also a fact that acting on the view that Entry 48 authorises
it, the States have enacted laws imposing a tax on the supply of
materials in works contracts, and have been realising it, and their
validity has been affirmed by several High Courts. All these laws C
were in the statute book when the Constitution came into force,
and it is to be regretted that there is nothing in it which offers a
solution to the present question. We have, no doubt, Art. 248 and
Entry 97 in List I conferring residual power of legislation on
Parliament, but clearly it could not have been intended that the
center should have the power to tax with respect to works D
constructed in the States. In view of the fact that the State
Legislatures had given to the expression “sale of goods” in Entry
48 a wider meaning than what it has in the Indian Sale of Goods
Act, that States with sovereign powers have in recent times been
enacting laws imposing tax on the use of materials in the E
construction of buildings, and that such a power should more
properly be lodged with the States rather than the center, the
Constitution might have given an inclusive definition of “sale” in
Entry 54 so as to cover the extended sense. But our duty is to
interpret the law as we find it, and having anxiously considered
the question, we are of opinion that there is no sale as such of F
materials used in a building contract, and that the Provincial
Legislatures had no competence to impose a tax thereon under
Entry 48. “
31. The ratio of the above judgment which is heavily relied by
Shri Srivastava is that this Court laid down that legal meaning of expression G
“sale of goods” has to be taken. It is further submitted that this Court
relied on the definition of “sale of goods” as occurring in Sale of Goods
Act, 1930 for interpreting Entry 48 in List II Schedule VII of the
Government of India Act, 1935. We may notice that in the above judgment
H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A this Court had occasion to deal with the definition of term “sale” and
explaining the legal meaning as existed at the time of enactment of
Government of India Act, 1935, the above law was laid down.
32. We may further notice that by the Constitution (Forty-sixth
Amendment) Act, 1982 sub-Article (29A) has been inserted in the
B Article 366 of the Constitution. Defining tax on sale or purchase of goods
which is inclusive definition. the above Constitution Amendment was
made with the intent to tax on the sale or purchase of goods on the
transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property.
Definition of sale as interpreted by this Court in Gannon Dunkerley &
Co.(Madras) Ltd. case (supra) is no longer applicable any more and
C work contracts were also taxed. We may also notice subsequent
Constitution Bench judgment in the case of M/s Gannon Dunkerley
and Co. and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 1993 (1)
SCC 364 , where this Court had occasion to examine Article 366(29A)
sub-clause (b) of the Constitution. This Court referring to its earlier
D judgment in Builders’ Association of India vs. Union of India, (1989)
2 SCC 645, made following observations in paragraphs 25 and 30:
“25. We find it difficult to accept this contention. The question
whether as a result of the Forty Sixth Amendment an independent
taxing power has been conferred on the States had arisen for
E consideration before this Court in Builders’ Association case
(supra) since it was specifically raised in the contentions urged on
behalf of the States. While summarising the said contentions this
Court has thus mentioned this contention Sub-clause (b) of Clause
29-A of Article 366 of the Constitution has conferred on the
Legislatures of States the power to levy tax on works contract
F which is independent of the power conferred on the Legislatures
of the States under Entry 54 of the State List, (p.346). The said
contention was rejected with these observations.
The object of the new definition introduced in Clause (29-A) of
Article 366 of the Constitution is, therefore, to enlarge the scope
G of tax on sale or purchase of goods wherever it occurs in the
Constitution so that it may include within its scope the transfer,
delivery or supply of goods that may take place under any of the
transactions referred to in Sub-Clauses (a) to (f) thereof wherever
such transfer, delivery of supply becomes subject to levy. of sales
H tax. So construed the expression tax on the sale or purchase of
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 175
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

goods in Entry 54 of the State List, therefore, includes a tax on A
the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some
other form) involved in the execution of a works contract also.
The tax leviable by virtue of Sub-clause (b) of Clause (29-A) of
Article 366 of the Constitution thus becomes subject to the same
discipline to which any levy under Entry 54 of the State List is
B
made subject to under the Constitution.
30. Having regard to the observations referred to above and the
stand of the parties during the course of arguments before us, we
do not consider it appropriate to reopen the issues which ; are
covered by the decision in Builders’ Association case (supra) and
we will, therefore, deal with the matter in accordance with the C
law as laid down in that case that the expression tax on the sale or
purchase of goods in Entry 54 of the State List includes a tax on
the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some
other form) involved in the execution of a works contract also
and the tax leviable by virtue of Sub-clause (b) of clause (29-A) D
of Article . 366 of the Constitution is subject to the discipline to
which any levy under Entry 54 of the State List is made subject to
under the Constitution. “
33. Definition of goods as occurring in Section 311(12) of
Government of India Act, 1935 although was noticed by this Court in E
Gannon Dunkerley and Co., (supra) but definition of goods was not
further elaborated. Definition of goods as occurring in Article 366(12) is
inclusive definition and does not specifically excludes actionable claim
from its definition. Whenever inclusive definition is given of an expression
it always intended to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases, used in
the definition. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of F
this Court in Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance
and Investment co.Ltd. And others,1987(1) SCC 424 with regard
to the inclusive definition. Following was observed in paragraphs 32-33:
“32....All that is necessary for us to say is this: Legislatures resort
to inclusive definitions (1) to enlarge the meaning of words or G
phrases so as to take in the ordinary, popular and natural sense of
the words and also the sense which the statute wishes to attribute
to it, (2) to include meanings about which there might be some
dispute, or, (3) to bring under one nomenclature all transactions
H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A possessing certain similar features but going under different names.
....
33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They
are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the
texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored.
B Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the
textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best
interpreted when we know why it was enacted. ...”
34. The Constitution framers were well aware of the definition of
goods as occurring in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 when the Constitution
C was enforced. By providing an inclusive definition of goods in
Article 366(12), the Constitution framers never intended to give any
restrictive meaning of goods.
35. In The State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,
(supra) this Court was concerned with the Provincial Legislatures under
D Entry 48 in List II in Schedule VII of the Government of India Act,
1935. We have extracted the observations made by this Court at page
426. This Court at page 426 of the judgment held that none of the Provincial
Legislatures could have exercised the power conferred to make law
with respect to sale of goods in the Lists, to impose a tax on construction
contracts. This Court further observed that before such a law could be
E enacted it would have been necessary to have had recourse to the residual
powers of the Governor-General under under Section 104 of the Act.
This Court has further observed that it has no doubt, Article 248 and
Entry 97 of List I conferring residual powers of legislation on Parliament,
but clearly it could not have been intended that Centre should have power
F to tax with respect to works constructed in the States.
36. The Act, 2017 is an Act of Parliament in exercise of power of
Parliament as conferred under Article 246A of the Constitution. Article
246A is extracted for ready reference:
“Article 246A. Special provision with respect to goods and
G services tax. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in articles
246 and 254, Parliament, and, subject to clause (2), the Legislature
of every State, have power to make laws with respect to goods
and services tax imposed by the Union or by such State.
(2) Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to
H goods and services tax where the supply of goods, or of services,
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 177
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

or both takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. A
Explanation.—The provisions of this article, shall, in respect of
goods and services tax referred to in clause (5) of Article 279A,
take effect from the date recommended by the Goods and Services
Tax Council.”
37. When the Parliament has been conferred power to make law B
with respect to goods and services, the legislative power of the Parliament
is plenary. The observations of this Court in The State of Madras v.
Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(supra) at page 426 are clear pointer that
although the State Legislature had no legislative competence to enact
impugned legislation but Parliament on the strength of residual power
could have legislated. We are the view that the judgment of this Court in C
The State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(supra) does not
lend support to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that Parliament could not have defined the goods in Act, 2017, expanding
the definition of goods as existing in Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
38. Now, we come to the Constitution Bench judgment of this D
Court in Sunrise Associates vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others,
(2006) 5 SCC 603, on which judgment learned counsel for both the
parties have placed reliance. The above Constitution Bench was
constituted to reconsider the earlier judgment of this Court in H. Anraj
and Ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. , (1986) 1 SCC E
424. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the referring order (Sunrise Associates
vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, 2010 (10) SCC 420) reads:
“4. We are inclined to agree that the judgment in H. Anraj requires
reconsideration for the reason that, prima facie, the only right of
the purchaser of a lottery ticket is to take the chance of winning F
the prize. There seems to us to be no good reason to split the
transaction of the sale of a lottery ticket into the acquisition of (I)
the right to participate in the lottery draw, and (ii) the right to win
the prize, dependent on chance.
5. In the case of Vikas Sales Corpn. v. Commr. Of Commercial G
Taxes (1996 (4) SCC 433), a Bench of three learned Judges
agreed with the decision in H. Anraj. It is, therefore, necessary
that these appeals should be heard by a Constitution Bench.”
39. Before we further look into the judgment of this Court in
Sunrise Associates, we need to notice very briefly judgment of this
H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A Court in H. Anraj. In the above case the question arose out of the levy
of tax on sales of lottery tickets under Tamil Nadu General Sales Act
1959. A writ petition was filed questioning the levy of tax imposed on
sale of lottery tickets before this Court. The contention which was urged
before this Court for challenging levy has been noticed in paragraph 5 of
the judgment in the following words:
B
“5. ....Counsel pointed out that under the charging provision
contained in both the Acts (s. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 1959 and
Section 4 of the Bengal Act 1941) the taxable event is the sale of
goods (here lottery tickets) and the levy is imposed upon the taxable
turnover of every dealer in regard to the sales of lottery tickets
C and therefore, quite clearly, each of the State Legislatures has
purported to Act in the exercise of its own taxing power under
Entry 54 of List II. But according to counsel Entry 54 of List II
enables legislation imposing a tax, inter alia, on “sale of goods”
that it is well-settled that the expression “sale of goods” has to be
D construed in the sense which it has in the Indian Sale of Goods
Act, 1930(vide Ganon Dunkerley’s case) MANU/SC/0152/1958
: [1959]1SCR379 “goods under Section 2(7) thereof comprises
within its scope every kind of movable property but specifically
excludes actionable claim, that the essence of lottery is a chance
for a prize, that a sale of such a chance is not a sale of goods and
E therefore the levy of sales tax on sale of lottery tickets would be
beyond the ambit of Entry 54 of List II. Alternatively, counsel
contended that a lottery ticket is an actionable claim as defined in
Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act or a chose-in-action known
to English law, the ticket itself being merely a slip of paper or
F memorandum evidencing the right of the holder thereof to claim
or receive a prize if successful in the draw and therefore the
impugned levy is outside Entry 54 of List II. …”
40. This Court in the above judgment noted the definitions of goods
as occurring in Sale of Goods Act, 1930, sale of goods in Tamil Nadu
G General Sales Act, 1959, and definition of goods in Article 366 (12).
After considering, this Court in H Anraj came to the conclusion that
lottery to the extent that they comprise the entitlement to participate in
the draw are “goods” properly so called, and they are not actionable
claims. In paragraph 33 of the judgment following was laid down:

H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 179
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

“33. In the light of the aforesaid discussion my conclusions are A
that lottery tickets to the extent that they comprise the entitlement
to participate in the draw are “goods” properly so called, squarely
falling within the definition of that expression as given in the
Tamil Nadu Act, 1959 and the Bengal Act, 1941, that to that extent
they are not actionable claims and that in every sale thereof a
B
transfer of property in the goods is involved. In view of these
conclusions the impugned Amendments made in the two concerned
Acts for levying tax on sale of lottery tickets will have to be upheld
as falling within the legislative competence of the concerned State
legislature under Entry 54 of List II in the Seventh Schedule and
therefore, we think it unnecessary to go into the validity of the C
alternative submission made by the learned Attorney General that
legislative competence for enacting the impugned Amendments
would also be there under Entry 62 of List II in the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution.”
41. As noted above the judgment of H Anraj came to be D
questioned. A Bench of three Judges in Vikas Sales Corporation and
another vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another,
(1996) 4 SCC 433, agreed with the decision of H Anaraj necessitating
reference before the Constitution Bench in Sunrise Associates, the
Constitution Bench noticed the question which arose before the
Constitution Bench. In paragraph 29 it noticed that “only question we E
are called upon to answer is whatever the decision in H Anaraj that
lottery tickets are “goods” for the purposes of Article 366(29A)(a) of
the Constitution and the State sales tax laws, was correct”. The
Constitution Bench in paragraph 33 observed that to the extent that the
lottery ticket evidenced the right to claim the prize, it was not goods but F
an actionable claim and therefore not “goods” under the sales tax laws.
In paragraph 33 following has been observed:
“33. In other words, the second conclusion which we have
indicated against ‘B’, was the ratio. The lottery ticket was held to
be merely evidence of the right to participate in the draw and G
therefore goods the transfer of which was a sale. To the extent
that the lottery ticket evidenced the right to claim the prize, it was
not goods but an actionable claim and therefore not ‘goods’ under
the Sales Tax Laws. A transfer of it was consequently not a sale.

H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A The lottery ticket per se had no innate value. The interpretation
by the Delhi High Court of the ratio in H. Anraj was in our opinion
erroneous. “
42. The pertinent observation has been made by the Constitution
Bench in paragraph 36 wherein it noticed that in States sales tax laws
B actionable claims have been uniformly excluded from the definition of
goods. This Court held “were actionable claims, etc. not otherwise
includible in the definition of “goods” there was no need for excluding
them”. Following has been laid down in paragraph 36:
“36. We have noted earlier that all the statutory definitions of the
C word ‘goods’ in the State Sales Tax Laws have uniformly excluded,
inter alia, actionable claims from the definition for the purposes of
the Act. Were actionable claims etc., not otherwise includible in
the definition of ‘goods’ there was no need for excluding them. In
other words, actionable claims are ‘goods’ but not for the purposes
of the Sales Tax Acts and but for this statutory exclusion, an
D actionable claim would be ‘goods’ or the subject matter of
ownership. Consequently an actionable claim is movable property
and ‘goods’ in the wider sense of the term but a sale of an actionable
claim would not be subject to the sales tax laws.”
43. In paragraph 40 the Constitution Bench reiterated that a sale
E of lottery ticket also amounts to the transfer of an actionable claim.
Following was laid down in paragraph 40:
“40. An actionable claim would include a right to recover insurance
money or a partner’s right to sue for an account of a dissolved
partnership or the right to claim the benefit of a contract not coupled
F with any liability (see Union of India v. Sarada Mills Ltd. SCC at
p.880, (1972) 2 SCC 877 ). A claim for arrears of rent has also
been held to be an actionable claim (State of Bihar v.
Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh, SCR at p.910 (1952) SCR
889). A right to the credit in a provident fund account has also’
G been held to an actionable claim (Official Trustee, Bengal v. L.
Chippendale, AIR 1944 Cal 335; Bhupati Mohan Das v. Phanindra
Chandra Chakravarty and Anr., AIR 1935 Cal 756. In our opinion
a sale of a lottery ticket also amounts to the transfer of an
actionable claim.”

H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 181
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

44. Further in paragraphs 46 and 48 this Court held lottery to be A
an actionable claim. Paragraphs 46 and 48 are to the following effect:
“46. There is no value in the mere right to participate in the draw
and the purchaser does not pay for the right to participate. The
consideration is paid for the chance to win. There is therefore no
distinction between the two rights. The right to participate being B
an inseparable part of the chance to win is therefore part of an
actionable claim.
48. Even if the right to participate is assumed to be a separate
right, there is no sale of goods within the meaning of sales tax
statutes when that right is transferred. When H. Anraj said that C
the right to participate was a beneficial interest in movable property,
it did not define what that movable property was. The draw could
not and was not suggested to be the movable property. The only
object of the right to participate would be to win the prize. The
transfer of the right would thus be of a beneficial interest in movable
property not in possession. By this reasoning also a right to D
participate in a lottery is an actionable claim. “
45. This Court concluded in paragraph 51 that in H Anraj it was
incorrectly held that a sale of a lottery ticket involved a sale of goods.
Paragraph 51 is as follows:
E
“51 We are therefore of the view that the decision in H. Anraj
incorrectly held that a sale of a lottery ticket involved a sale of
goods. There was no sale of goods within the meaning of Sales
Tax Acts of the different States but at the highest a transfer of an
actionable claim. The decision to the extent that it held otherwise
is accordingly overruled though prospectively with effect from F
the date of this judgment. “
46. One of the submissions which has been pressed by Shri
Srivastava is that the observations made by the Constitution Bench in
the above paragraphs that lottery is an actionable claim is based on an
obiter dicta since the question was not up for consideration. He submits G
that Court was to consider as to whether lottery tickets are goods or not
within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Tamil Nadu General Sales Act,
1959 as amended. The definition of goods in Section 2(j) as noticed by
the Constitution Bench in paragraph 9 states that ‘goods’ means all kinds
of movable property (other than newspaper, actionable claims, stocks,
H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A shares and securities). The exclusion of the actionable claims from the
goods as enumerated in the definition is also a part of the definition. If a
particular item is covered by exclusion it is obvious that it does not fall in
the definition of the goods. When the Constitution Bench came to the
conclusion that the lottery is an actionable claim it was considering the
definition of 2(j) itself and what has been held by the Constitution Bench
B
cannot be held to be obiter dicta.
47. Explaining obiter dicta this Court in Municipal Corporation
of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kau, 1989(1) SCC 101, made following
observation in paragraphs 10 and 11:
C “10....The only thing in a judge’s decision binding as an authority
upon a subsequent judge is the principle upon which the case was
decided. Statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi are
distinguished as obiter dicta and and are not authoritative. ....
11. Pronouncements of law, which are not part of the ratio
D decidendi are classed as obiter dicta and are not authoritative.
....”
48. 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 covered by excluded category, the said
E conclusion could have been arisen only after consideration of the definition
and the exclusionary clause. We, thus, are not in agreement with the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations
of the Constitution Bench holding lottery as actionable claim is only obiter
dicta and not binding. The Constitution Bench in Sunrise Associates
has categorically held that lottery is actionable claim after due
F consideration which is ratio of the judgment. When Section 2(52) of Act,
2017 expanded the definition of goods by including actionable claim also,
the said definition in Section 2(52) is in the line with the Constitution
Bench pronouncement in Sunrise Associates and no exception can be
taken to the definition of the goods as occurring in Section 2(52).
G 49. We are of the view that definition of goods under Section
2(52) of the Act,2017 does not violate any constitutional provision nor it
is in conflict with the definition of goods given under Article 366(12).
Article 366 clause(12) as observed contains an inclusive definition and
the definition given in Section 2(52) of Act, 2017 is not in conflict with
definition given in Article 366(12). As noted above the Parliament by the
H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 183
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 inserted A
Article 246A., a special provision with respect to goods and services
tax. The Parliament was fully empowered to make laws with respect to
goods and services tax. Article 246A begins with non obstante clause
that is “Notwithstanding anything contained in Articles 246 and 254”,
Which confers very wide power to make laws. The power to make
B
laws as conferred by Article 246A fully empowers the Parliament to
make laws with respect to goods and services tax and expansive definition
of goods given in Section 2(52) cannot be said to be not in accord with
the constitutional provisions.
50. Shri Shrivastava with his usual ability and skill submits that
Parliament does not enjoy an absolute power to make an inclusive C
definition of something to be taxed, which is not taxable otherwise. The
power of legislature to lay definition has limitations and cannot include
something which cannot in rational sense be included. While goods and
actionable claims are both different concepts, lottery has no resemblance
with either. The legislature can only provide an extended meaning by D
inclusive definition only for preventing tax evasion. To support his
submission, he has relied on judgment of this Court in Bhopal Sugar
Industries Ltd., M.P. And Anr. vs. D.P. Dube, Sales Tax Officer
and Anr., (1964) 1 SCR 481. The facts of the case have been noticed
by the Constitution Bench of this Court in following words:
E
“By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution it is claimed
that the definition of “retail sale” in Section 2(1) of the Act which
seeks to render consumption by the owner of motor-spirit liable to
tax under the Act by virtue of Section 3 is beyond the competence
of the State Legislature and hence void and the order of the first
respondent seeking to impose liability upon the Company for F
payment of tax infringes the fundamental rights of the Company
under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.”
51. This Court held that consumption by an owner of goods in
which he deals is not a sale within the meaning of sale of goods. It was
held that extended definition, which includes consumption by a retail G
dealer of motor spirit or lubricants is beyond the competence of the
State legislature. Following was laid down by this Court:-
“Consumption by an owner of goods in which he deals is therefore
not a sale within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act and
H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A therefore it is not “sale of goods” within the meaning of Entry 54
List II Schedule VII of the Constitution. The legislative power for
levying tax on sale of goods being restricted to enacting legislation
for levying tax on transactions which conform to the definition of
sale of goods within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930,
the extended definition which includes consumption by a retail
B
dealer himself of motor spirit or lubricants sold to him for retail
sale” is beyond the competence of the State legislature. But the
clause in the definition in, Section (1) “and includes the consumption
by a retail dealer himself or on his behalf of motor spirit or lubricant
to him for retail sale which is ultra vires the State Legislature
C because of lack of competence under Entry 54 in List II Schedule
VII of the Constitution is saverable, from the rest of the definition,
and that clause alone must be declared invalid.”
52. In the above case, the Constitution Bench was considering
the concept of “sale” and the extended definition of sale by which
D consumption by owner himself was treated to be sale was held ultra
vires to the legislative competence of the State. The present is a case
where we are not dealing with concept of sale and further in the case
before us, it is the Parliament, which has enacted the Act, 2017 which
has competence to make a law imposing tax on goods and services.
E 53. We may notice another Constitution Bench Judgment of this
Court in Navinchandra Mafatlal Bombay vs. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Bombay City, AIR 1955 SC 58. In the above case,
challenge was made to Section 12-B of the Indian Income Tax Act,
1922. It was contended that Section 12-B, which authorise the levy of
tax on capital gains was ultra vires to the central legislature. The
F Constitution Bench laid down following in paragraph 5:-
“5. ………………………….If we hold, as we are asked to do,
that the meaning of the word “income” has become rigidly
crystallized by reason of the judicial interpretation of that word
appearing in the Income Tax Act then logically no enlargement of
G the scope of the Income Tax Act, by amendment or otherwise,
will be permissible in future. A conclusion so extravagant and
astounding can scarcely be contemplated or countenanced.
XXXXXXXXXX”

H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 185
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

54. This Court further laid down that a word appearing in a A
Constitution Act, must not be construed in any narrow and pedantic
sense. Following was laid down in paragraph 6:-
“6. It should be remembered that the question before us relates to
the correct interpretation of a word appearing in a Constitution
Act which, as has been said, must not be construed in any narrow B
and pedantic sense………………………”
55. Another judgment of Constitution Bench of this Court to be
noticed is Navnitlal C. Javeri vs. K.K. Sen, Appellate, Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax, (1965) 1 SCR 909. In the above
case, question arose regarding constitutionality of Section 12(1B) read C
with Section 2(6A)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1922. It was contended before
this court that a loan advanced to a shareholder by the company cannot,
in any legitimate sense, be treated as his income; and so, the artificial
manner in which such dividend is ordered to be treated as income by the
impugned provision is not justified. It is true that this Court has laid down
that Parliament cannot choose to tax as income an item which in no D
rational sense can be regarded as a citizen’s income. Following was
observed:-
“This doctrine does not, however, mean that Parliament can choose
to tax as income an item which in no rational sense can be regarded
as a citizen’s income. The item taxed should rationally be capable E
of being considered as the income of a citizen. But in considering
the question as to whether a particular item in the hands of a
citizen can be regarded as his income or not, it would be
inappropriate to apply the tests traditionally prescribed by the
Income Tax Act as such.” F
56. This Court held that legislature has not travelled beyond the
legislative field while enacting the impugned provision. Following was
observed:-
“………………………There must no doubt be some rational
connection between the item taxed and the concept of income G
liberally construed. If the legislature realises that the private
controlled companies generally adopt the device of making
advances or giving loans to their shareholders with the object of
evading the payment of tax, it can step in to meet this mischief,
and in that connection, it has created a fiction by which the amount
H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A ostensibly and nominally advanced to a shareholder as a loan is
treated in reality for tax purposes as the payment of dividend to
him. We have already explained how a small number of
shareholders controlling a private company adopt this device.
Having regard to the fact that the legislature was aware of such
devices, would it not be competent to the legislature to devise a
B
fiction for treating the ostensible loan as the receipt of dividend?
In our opinion, it would be difficult to hold that in making the fiction,
the legislature has travelled beyond the legislative field assigned
to it by Entry 82 in List I.”
57. In view of what has been laid down by the Constitution Bench,
C as above, there has to be a rational connection between the item taxed
but it is well settled that with regard to taxing policy of the legislature,
the Courts have very limited role to play. It is useful to refer the
observations of this Court in Sri Krishna Das vs. Town Area
Committee, Chirgaon, (1990) 3 SCC 645 wherein paragraph 31,
D following was observed:-
“31. The contention that the tax is discriminatory in view of the
exemptions granted to some of the products and to those that
enter the TAC by rail or motor transport is equally untenable. It is
for the legislature or the taxing authority to determine the question
E of need, the policy and to select the goods or services for taxation.
The courts cannot review these decisions……………….”
58. We have already noted that under Article 246A notwithstanding
anything contained in Articles 246 and 254, Parliament has power to
make laws with respect to goods and services tax. Article 246A is a
F special provision with regard to goods and services tax w.e.f. 16.09.2016,
which special power has to be liberally construed empowering the
Parliament to make laws with respect to goods and services tax. The
submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that actionable claim
has been artificially and with a view to assume the power to tax has
been included in Section 2(52). The Constitution Bench of this Court in
G Sunrise Associates (supra) has held that actionable claims are
includible in the definition of goods and had actionable claims were not
includible there was no need for excluding them. The Constitution Bench
held “were actionable claims, etc., not otherwise includible in the definition
of “goods”, there was no need for excluding them. In other words,
H actionable claims are “goods” but not for the purpose of Sales Tax Acts
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 187
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

and but for this statutory exclusion, an actionable claim would be “goods” A
or the subject-matter of ownership”.
59. Thus, in view of what has been said above by the Constitution
Bench, the submission of the petitioner that actionable claims have been
artificially included in the definition of goods cannot be accepted. The
Constitution Bench has clearly laid down that actionable claims are goods. B
We, thus, do not agree with the submission of Shri Shrivastava that
Parliament has exceeded its jurisdiction in including actionable claims in
the definition of “goods” under Section 2(52).
60. We, thus, answer Question Nos.II and III in the following
manner: C
Answer No. II
61. The inclusion of actionable claim in definition “goods” as given
in Section 2(52) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is not
contrary to the legal meaning of goods and is neither illegal nor
unconstitutional. D
Answer No. III
62. The Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Sunrise
Associates has laid down that lottery is an actionable claim as proposition
of law. The observation cannot be said to be obiter dicta. E
Question No. IV
63. As noted above, another limb of attack mounted by Shri
Shrivastava is on the ground of hostile discrimination while taxing lottery,
betting and gambling and excluding other actionable claims. Reference
is made to Item No.6 of Schedule III of Act, 2017. Schedule III begins F
with heading “activities or transactions which shall be treated neither as
supply of goods nor supply of services. Item No.6 of Schedule III is as
follows:-
“Item No.6 – Actionable claims other than lottery, betting and
gambling.” G

64. Submission is that assuming the lotteries to be actionable claims,
the Act, 2017 suffers from a hostile discrimination in first including
actionable claims within the category of goods and then excluding all
actionable claims from supply of goods and creating a further exception
H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A of lottery, betting and gambling in Schedule III. Further submission is
that there is no intelligible differentia for excluding lotteries, betting and
gambling from the other actionable claims, nor does such exclusion have
any nexus with the purpose of the Act. In support of the above preposition,
Shri Shrivastava has relied on judgment of this Court in Ayurveda
Pharmacy and Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1989) 2 SCC 285.
B
This Court in the above case laid down that when the commodities belong
to same class or category, there must be rational basis for discrimination
between one commodity and other for purpose of imposing the tax. In
paragraph 6 of the judgment, following has been laid down:-
6. ……………It is open to the legislature, or the State
C Government if it is authorised in that behalf by the legislature, to
select different rates of tax for different commodities. But where
the commodities belong to the same class or category, there must
be a rational basis for discriminating between one commodity and
another for the purpose of imposing tax. It is commonly known
D that considerations of economic policy constitute a basis for levying
different rates of sales tax. For instance, the object may be to
encourage a certain trade or industry in the context of the State
policy for economic growth, and a lower rate would be considered
justified in the case of such a commodity. There may be several
such considerations bearing directly on the choice of the rate of
E sales tax, and so long as there is good reason for making the
distinction from other commodities no complaint can be made.
What the actual rate should be is not a matter for the courts to
determine generally, but where a distinction is made between
commodities falling in the same category a question arises at once
F before a court whether there is justification for the
discrimination………………………”
65. Another judgment laying down the same preposition as relied
by learned counsel for the petitioner is State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors. vs. Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemical Corporation Ltd.,
G (2007) 10 SCC 342.
66. There can be no dispute to the above preposition laid down by
this Court. The question to be answered is as to whether there is any
rational reason for taking out only three actionable claims, i.e., lottery,
betting and gambling while leaving other actionable claims from tax net.
H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 189
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

67. Whether there is any rational basis for taking out only these A
three actionable claims is a question to be answered, whether the
legislature has created a hostile discrimination by taxing only these three
whereas leaving other actionable claims out of the tax net.
68. Even before enforcement of the Constitution of India, there
were several legislations by different States regulating lottery, betting B
and gambling. Before a Constitution bench of this court in State of
Bombay vs. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala and Anr., AIR 1957 SC 699
, this Court had occasion to consider the nature of activities akin to
lottery, betting and gambling. Bombay Lotteries and prize Competition
Control and Tax Act, 1948 was enacted to regulate the tax, lotteries and
prize competition. The petitioner, who was conducting and running the C
prize competition from State of Mysore where entries were received
from various parts of India including the State of Bombay had challenged
the Act, 1948 and the Rules namely Bombay Lotteries and Prize
Competitions Control and Tax Rules, 1952. The writ petition was allowed
by the High Court, against which State of Bombay had filed an appeal. D
The Constitution Bench held the activity of respondent as activity of
gambling nature. This Court laid down following in paragraphs 41 and
46:-
“41. It will be abundantly clear from the foregoing observations
that the activities which have been condemned in this country E
from ancient times appear to have been equally discouraged and
looked upon with disfavour in England, Scotland, the United States
of America and in Australia in the cases referred to above. We
find it difficult to accept the contention that those activities which
encourage a spirit of reckless propensity for making easy gain by
lot or chance, which lead to the loss of the hard earned money of F
the undiscerning and improvident common man and thereby lower
his standard of living and drive him into a chronic state of
indebtedness and eventually disrupt the peace and happiness of
his humble home could possibly have been intended by our
Constitution makers to be raised to the status of trade, commerce G
or intercourse and to be made the subject-matter of a fundamental
right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g). We find it difficult to persuade
ourselves that gambling was ever intended to form any part of
this ancient country’s trade, commerce or intercourse to be
declared as free under Article 301. It is not our purpose nor is it
H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A necessary for us in deciding this case to attempt an exhaustive
definition of the word “trade”, “business”, or “intercourse”. We
are, however, clearly of opinion that whatever else may or may
not be regarded as falling within the meaning of these words,
gambling cannot certainly be taken as one of them. We are
convinced and satisfied that the real purpose of Articles 19(1)(g)
B
and 301 could not possibly have been to guarantee or declare the
freedom of gambling. Gambling activities from their very nature
and in essence are extra-commercium although the external forms,
formalities and instruments of trade may be employed and they
are not protected either by Article 19(1)(g) or Article 301 of our
C Constitution.
46. For the reasons stated above, we have come to the conclusion
that the impugned law is a law with respect to betting and gambling
under Entry 34 and the impugned taxing section is a law with
respect to tax on betting and gambling under Entry 62 and that it
D was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature to
have enacted it. There is sufficient territorial nexus to entitle the
State Legislature to collect the tax from the petitioners who carry
on the prize competitions through the medium of a newspaper
printed and published outside the State of Bombay. The prize
competitions being of a gambling nature, they cannot be regarded
E as trade or commerce and as such the petitioners cannot claim
any fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) in respect of such
competitions, nor are they entitled to the protection of Article 301.
The result, therefore, is that this appeal must be allowed and the
orders of the lower courts set aside and the petitions dismissed
F and we do so with costs throughout. The state will get only one
set of costs of hearing of this and Appeals Nos. 135, 136, & 187
of 1956 throughout.”
69. In a later decision, Union of India and Ors. vs. Martin
Lottery Agencies Limited, (2009) 12 SCC 209, this Court had
G occasion to consider levy of service tax on the lottery tickets. This
Court had held that law as it stands today recognises lottery to be
gambling, which is res extra commercium. In paragraph 17, following
has been laid down:-
“17. We fail to persuade ourselves to agree with the
H aforementioned submission. The law, as it stands today (although
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 191
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

it is possible that this Court in future may take a different view), A
recognises lottery to be gambling. Gambling is res extra
commercium as has been held by this Court in State of
Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala [AIR 1957 SC 699]
and B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. [(1999) 9 SCC 700]”
70. Lottery, betting and gambling are well known concepts and B
have been in practice in this country since before independence and
were regulated and taxed by different legislations. 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 C
including taxation in one or other form on the activities namely lottery,
betting and gambling has been in existence since last several decades.
When the parliament has included above three for purpose of imposing
GST and not taxed other actionable claims, it cannot be said that there is
no rationale or reason for taxing above three and leaving others. D
71. It is a duty of the State to strive to promote the welfare of the
people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order
in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the
institutions of the national life. The Constitution Bench in State of
Bombay vs. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala and Anr. (supra) has clearly E
stated that Constitution makers who set up an ideal welfare State have
never intended to elevate betting and gambling on the level of country’s
trade or business or commerce. In this country, the aforesaid were never
accorded recognition of trade, business or commerce and were always
regulated and taxing the lottery, gambling and betting was with the
objective as noted by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of F
Bombay vs. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala and Anr. (supra), we, thus,
do not accept the submission of the petitioner that there is any hostile
discrimination in taxing the lottery, betting and gambling and not taxing
other actionable claims. The rationale to tax the aforesaid is easily
comprehensible as noted above. Hence, we do not find any violation of G
Article 14 in Item No. 6 of Schedule III of the Act, 2017.
Question No.5
72. The petitioner’s contention is that price money should be abated
from the face value of the lottery ticket for levy of GST. The prices are
H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A paid to the winner of the lottery ticket by the distributer/agent. It has
been submitted that in the earlier regime of service tax also for the
purposes of computing service tax the value of service tax was taken
into account as the total face value of the ticket sold minus the total cost
of the ticket and the prize money paid by the distributor. Further, service
tax was levied at a miniscule rate of 0.82% and 1.2% as compared to
B
the exorbitant rate of 28% which is being charged now. The question to
be answered is that while determining the face value of the ticket for
levy of tax the price money of the ticket is to be excluded. The reliance
has also been placed on the circular dated 14.02.2007 which provided
that the value of taxable service shall be taken into account at the total
C face value of the ticket sold minus (a) the total cost of the ticket paid by
the distributor to the State Government and (b) price money paid by the
distributer. Further, reliance has been placed on the Constitution Bench
judgment of this Court in M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and co. and others
vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 1993(1) SCC 364, where the
Constitution Bench laid down that the value of the goods involved in
D
execution of a works contract on which tax is leviable must exclude the
charges which appertain to the contract for supply of labour and services.
The reliance is placed on paragraph 47 of the judgment which is to the
following effect:
“45. Keeping in view the legal fiction introduced by the Forty
E Sixth Amendment whereby the works contract which are entire
and indivisible into one for sale of goods and other for supply of
labour and services, the value of the goods involved in the execution
of a works contract on which tax is leviable must exclude the
charges which appertain to the contract for supply of labour and
F services. This would mean that labour charges for execution of
works item no (i) amounts paid to a sub-contractor for labour and
services [item No. (ii), charges for planning, designing and
architect’s fees [item No. (iii), charges for obtaining on hire or
otherwise machinery and tools used in the execution of a works
contact [item No. (iv), and the cost of consumables such as water,
G electricity, fuel etc. which are consumed in the process of
execution of a works contract item No. (v) and other similar
expenses for labour and services will have to be excluded as
charges for supply of labour and services. ...”

H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 193
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

73. We may first notice the statutory scheme under the Act, 2017 A
and Rules framed thereunder regarding determination of value of supply.
Section 15 of the Act deals with value of taxable supply. Section 15 (1)
to (4) which is relevant for the present case is as follows:
Section 15.(1) The value of a supply of goods or services or both
shall be the transaction value, which is the price actually paid or B
payable for the said supply of goods or services or both where the
supplier and the recipient of the supply are not related and the
price is the sole consideration for the supply.
(2) The value of supply shall include–––
(a) any taxes, duties, cesses, fees and charges levied C
under any law for the time being in force other than
this Act, the State Goods and Services Tax Act, the
Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act and the
Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States)
Act, if charged separately by the supplier; D
(b) any amount that the supplier is liable to pay in relation
to such supply but which has been incurred by the
recipient of the supply and not included in the price
actually paid or payable for the goods or services or
both; E
(c) incidental expenses, including commission and
packing, charged by the supplier to the recipient of a
supply and any amount charged for anything done
by the supplier in respect of the supply of goods or
services or both at the time of, or before delivery of F
goods or supply of services;
(d) interest or late fee or penalty for delayed payment of
any consideration for any supply; and
(e) subsidies directly linked to the price excluding
subsidies provided by the Central Government and G
State Governments.
Explanation.––For the purposes of this sub-section,
the amount of subsidy shall be included in the value
of supply of the supplier who receives the subsidy.
H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A (3) The value of the supply shall not include any discount which is
given––
(a) before or at the time of the supply if such discount
has been duly recorded in the invoice issued in respect
of such supply; and
B (b) after the supply has been effected, if—(i) such
discount is established in terms of an agreement
entered into at or before the time of such supply and
specifically linked to relevant invoices; and
(ii) input tax credit as is attributable to the discount on the basis of
C document issued by the supplier has been reversed by the recipient of
the supply.
(4) Where the value of the supply of goods or services or both
cannot be determined under sub-section (1), the same shall be determined
in such manner as may be prescribed.”
D
74. The Rules have been framed, namely, the Central Goods and
Services Tax Rules, 2017 in which Rules by notification dated 23.01.2018
Rule 31A has been inserted dealing with value of supply in case of lottery,
betting, gambling and horse racing. Article 31A as was inserted provides
as follows:
E
“Section 31A. Value of supply in case of lottery, betting,
gambling and horse racing. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of this
Chapter, the value in respect of supplies specified below shall be
determined in the manner provided hereinafter.
F
(2) (a) The value of supply of lottery run by State Governments
shall be deemed to be 100/112 of the face value of ticket or of the
price as notified in the Official Gazette by the organising State,
whichever is higher.
G (b) The value of supply of lottery authorised by State Governments
shall be deemed to be 100/128 of the face value of ticket or of the
price as notified in the Official Gazette by the organising State,
whichever is higher.
Explanation:– For the purposes of this sub-rule, the expressions-
H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 195
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

(a) —lottery run by State Governments means a lottery not A
allowed to be sold in any State other than the organizing
State;
(b) —lottery authorised by State Governments means a lottery
which is authorised to be sold in State(s) other than the
organising State also; and B
(c) —Organising State has the same meaning as assigned to it
in clause (f) of sub-rule (1) of rule 2 of the Lotteries
(Regulation) Rules, 2010.
(3) The value of supply of actionable claim in the form of chance
to win in betting, gambling or horse racing in a race club shall be C
100% of the face value of the bet or the amount paid into the
totalisator.”
75. Rule 31A has now been amended vide notification dated
02.03.2020 by which following sub-rule (2) has been substituted:
D
“Sub-Rule (2). The value of supply of lottery shall be deemed to
be 100/128 of the face value of ticket or of the price as notified in
the Official Gazette by the Organising State, whichever is higher.”
76. We may first deal with submission of the petitioner based on
circular dated 14.02.2007. Circular dated 14.02.2007 was issued when
E
the service tax was levied on distributor of paper lottery. The circular
provided for determination of value of taxable service by deducting total
cost of ticket paid by the distributor and price money paid by the
distributor, that was regime when it was treated as business auxilliary
service rendered by distributor. The said circular has no relevance or
application after the 2017 enactment. F
77. We may also refer to Constitution Bench judgment of Gannon
Dankerley and Co. (second) where this Court laid down that value of
the goods involved in the execution of the works contract on which tax
is leviable must exclude the charges which appertain to the contract for
supply of labour and services. As noted above in paragraph 47 this Court G
noted items which were to be excluded while determining the value of
goods involved in the works contract. What was held by this Court in the
above case relates to works contract which judgment has no application
on the issue which has arisen before us that is abatement of price money
while determining the value of the lottery.
H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A 78. For determining the value of the lottery, now, there is statutory
provision contained in Section 15 read with Rule 31A as noted above.
Section 15 of the Act, 2017 by sub-section (2) it is provided what shall
be included in the value of supply. What can be included in the value is
enumerated in sub-clause (a) to (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 15.
Further, sub-section (3) of Section 15 provides that what shall not be
B
included in the value of the supply. When there are specific statutory
provisions enumerating what should be included in the value of the supply
and what shall not be included in the value of the supply we cannot
accept the submission of the petitioner that prize money is to be abated
for determining the value of taxable supply. What is the value of taxable
C supply is subject to the statutory provision which clearly regulates, which
provision has to be given its full effect and something which is not required
to be excluded in the value of taxable supply cannot be added by judicial
interpretation.
79. Further, Rule 31A as noted above, sub-rule (2) as amended
D clearly provides that value of supply shall be deemed to be 100/128 of
the face value of ticket or of the prize as notified in the Official Gazette
by the Organising State, whichever is higher. Learned Additional Solicitor
General has explained the working of Rule 31A of Rules by giving an
example:
E “For example, if Rs. 100 is the face value of lottery ticket, 28%
GST is levied only on Rs.78.125[(100*28)/128]. GST amount will
be 21.875. Therefore, Rs.100 includes GST of 21.875 on the
taxable value of Rs.78.125. This is a mechanism to split the face
value of Rs.100 in two parts (A and B). A is the transaction value.
B is GST on A. The formula as above is to come to A by reverse
F calculation.”
80. The value of taxable supply is a matter of statutory regulation
and when the value is to be transaction value which is to be determined
as per Section 15 it is not permissible to compute the value of taxable
supply by excluding prize which has been contemplated in the statutory
G scheme. When prize paid by the distributor/agent is not contemplated to
be excluded from the value of taxable supply, we are not persuaded to
accept the submission of the petitioner that prize money should be excluded
for computing the taxable value of supply the prize money should be
excluded. We, thus, conclude that while determining the taxable value of
H
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. 197
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

supply the prize money is not to be excluded for the purpose of levy of A
GST.
81. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on various
taxing statutes of other countries, wherein the petitioner submits that
prize money of the lottery ticket are not being computing for levy of tax.
He has referred to provisions of United Kingdom-Value Added Tax, B
1994; Excise Tax Act of Canada; Goods and Services Tax Act of
Singapore; Goods and Services Act, 1985 of New Zealand and Sri Lanka-
Value Added Tax Act, 2002. When the levy of GST, determination of
taxable value are governed by the Parliamentary Act in this country, we
are of the view that legislative scheme of other countries may not be
relevant for determining the issue which has been raised before us. The C
taxing policy and the taxing statute of various countries are different
which are in accordance with taxing regime suitable and applicable in
different countries. The issue which has been raised before us has to be
answered by looking into the statutory provisions of the Act, 2017 and
the Rules framed therein which govern the field. D
82. In the foregoing discussion we are of the view that the petitioner
is not entitled to reliefs as claimed in the writ petition.
83. We may, however, notice that petitioner has prayed for grant
of liberty of challenging the notifications dated 21.02.2020/02.03.2020
by which rate of GST for lottery run by the State and lottery organized E
by the State have been made the same, which notification has not been
challenged in the writ petition since the notifications were issued during
the pendency of writ petition. Petitioner has prayed that the said issue
be left open, the notification having not been challenged in the writ petition
liberty be given to the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate F
proceedings. We accept the above prayer of the petitioner. The petitioner
shall be at liberty to challenge the notifications dated 21.02.2020/
02.03.2020 (challenging the rate of levy tax uniformally at 28%)
separately in appropriate proceedings. Subject to liberty as above, the
writ petition is dismissed.
G

Devika Gujral Writ petition dismissed.

H