Bangalore Turf Club Ltd VS State Of Karnataka

The petitioners in these writ petitions are challenging the legislative intent behind making them liable to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the entire bet amount received by the totalisator. They specifically target the amendments dated 25-01-2018, which introduced Rule 31A(3) to the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, arguing that these amendments are ultra vires the CGST Act.

To provide a brief overview of the factual background as presented by the petitioners:

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the amendments that make them liable for GST on the total bet amount collected through the totalisator system.

2. They contend that the amendments are beyond the scope of the CGST Act and go against the legislative intent.

3. The petitioners argue that the amendments create an unintended burden on them, affecting their business operations and financial viability.

4. They highlight that the totalisator system is a mechanism for accepting bets and distributing winnings, and it operates on a commission basis.

5. The petitioners assert that taxing the entire bet amount under GST is unjustified, as it does not account for the commission earned by them.

6. They emphasize the need for clarity and consistency in tax laws to avoid ambiguity and undue financial strain on businesses.

7. The petitioners seek relief from the court to declare the amendments as ultra vires and to prevent the imposition of GST on the total bet amount received through the totalisator system.

In summary, the petitioners are challenging the amendments to the CGST Rules, arguing that the imposition of GST on the entire bet amount received through the totalisator system is unjust and beyond the scope of the CGST Act. They seek the court’s intervention to declare the amendments as ultra vires and to alleviate the financial burden imposed on them by these tax regulations.

The writ petitions under discussion challenge the legislative intent behind imposing Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the entire bet amount received by the totalisator. They specifically target the amendments dated January 25, 2018, which introduced Rule 31A(3) into the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, alleging these amendments to be ultra vires the CGST Act.

To provide context, the petitioners are companies incorporated under the Companies Act as Public Limited Companies. They are engaged in the operation of a race club, which involves preparing land for horse races, steeplechases, and athletic sports. These petitioners primarily focus on horse racing and facilitate betting by punters. They do not engage in betting themselves but provide the platform for punters to place their bets. Punters can place their bets either through a totalisator operated by the petitioners or through a bookmaker licensed by the petitioners.

When a horse backed by a punter wins, the winning punter is required to present their receipt to claim the winning amount. Essentially, the money from losing punters is utilized to pay the prize money to the winning punter. The petitioners oversee the distribution of the prize money to the winning punters, deducting the amount from the total pool.

The crux of the challenge lies in the petitioners’ contention that the imposition of GST on the entire bet amount, rather than just the commission earned by the petitioners, is unjustified and exceeds the legislative intent of the CGST Act. They argue that their role is merely that of a facilitator, not a participant, in the betting activity. The petitioners argue that the amendments to the CGST Rules, particularly Rule 31A(3), unfairly burden them with GST liabilities that are beyond the scope of the law.

The petitioners seek relief from the court, requesting that the amendments dated January 25, 2018, be declared ultra vires the CGST Act, and any imposition of GST on the entire bet amount received by the totalisator be deemed unlawful. They argue for a more nuanced approach to GST application, one that considers their role as facilitators in the betting process and limits GST liability to their actual earnings from these activities. The outcome of these writ petitions could have significant implications for the taxation of betting activities and the interpretation of GST laws in similar contexts.

These writ petitions involve challenges against the legislative intent behind making the petitioners liable to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the entire bet amount received by the totalisator. The petitioners specifically contest the amendments dated 25-01-2018, which introduced Rule 31A(3) to the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, arguing that these amendments are ultra vires the CGST Act.

Here’s a detailed summary of the case:

1. The petitioners are companies incorporated under the Companies Act as Public Limited Companies. They are engaged in the business of a race club, which involves preparing land for various races, including horse races, steeplechases, and athletic sports. The petitioners primarily conduct horse racing and facilitate betting by punters. However, they do not place bets themselves; instead, they provide facilities for punters to place their bets. Punters can place bets either with a totalisator run by the petitioners or with a bookmaker licensed by the petitioners.

2. When a punter’s backed horse wins, the punter presents the receipt and receives the winning amount. Essentially, the money from losing punters is used to pay the winning punters. The petitioners retain a commission from the amount, which is their claimed modus operandi.

3. Until June 30th, 2017, the petitioners state that they paid service tax on the commission retained and betting tax under the provisions of the Mysore Betting Tax Act, 1932. However, from July 1st, 2017, the Mysore Betting Tax Act and the Service Tax provisions were repealed, and the Goods and Services Tax laws came into effect.

4. Starting from July 1st, 2017, a combination of GST taxes – Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST), Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST), State Goods and Services Tax (SGST), and Goods and Services Tax of Union Territory (UTGST) – were implemented. Prior to the introduction of these GST taxes, the petitioners were classified as service providers.

In summary, the petitioners challenge the imposition of GST on the entire bet amount received by the totalisator, arguing that the amendments to the CGST Rules are beyond the scope of the CGST Act. They contend that their business model involves facilitating betting activities rather than directly engaging in betting, and they seek relief from the GST liability imposed on their operations.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: