The provision has to conform to the statute under which the Rule is made and exceeding the limits of the authority conferred by the enabling Act is one of those circumstances where the Rule could be struck down, held, a single-judge bench of Justice Nagaprasanna, in the matter of Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. v. State of Karnataka; [WP No.11168/2018 (T – RES)].
The petitioners, are Companies incorporated under the Companies Act as a Public Limited Company are carrying on the business of a race club, which includes lay-out and preparing any land for running of horse races, steeplechases of races of any other kind and for any kind of athletic sports. The petitioners particularly conduct horse racing and facilitates betting by the punters. The petitioners by themselves do not bet, but only facilitates punters in their betting activity. It is the punter who places the bet either with a totalisator run by the petitioners or a book-maker licensed by the petitioners. If a horse backed by the punter wins, the winning punter is required to surrender the receipt and receive the winning amount. It means, a losing punter’s money is used to pay the price money of the winning punter. The price money is distributed by the petitioners to the winning punter and out of the amount Commission is set apart to be taken by the petitioners. This is the broad modus of functioning of the petitioners as claimed by it.
Up to 30th June 2017 the petitioners claim to have discharged payment of service tax on the commission so retained and the betting tax under the provisions of the Mysore Betting Tax Act, 1932. On and from 1st July 2017, the Mysore Betting Tax and the Service Tax provisions stood repealed and the Goods and Services Tax laws were brought into force. From the appointed day i.e., 01-07-2017 a combination of these taxes; CGST, IGST and SGST were brought into force. Till the onset of these taxes, the petitioners were treated as service providers under Chapter-V of the Finance Act, and Service Tax was levied on the petitioners’ commission alone. After the CGST regime began, an amendment was brought into Rule 31A by insertion of Rule 31A(3) to the CGST Rules. The amendment made GST payable by the petitioners on the amount of bet that gets into the totalisator. It is this amendment that is called in question by the petitioners in this writ petition on the ground that the Rule is made beyond the powers conferred under the CGST Act, which would render it to be ultra vires and has sought a consequential declaration that the CGST and KSGST be restricted only to the Commission that the petitioners get on holding the amount in the totalisator for a brief period.
The Court upon considering the aforesaid facts stated that; “Article 246A which introduced Goods and Services Act, 2017, the Goods and Services Act, 2017, the definitions and other provisions of the Act do not bring in the activity of the petitioners under the ambit of the Act. Rule 31A(3) travels beyond what is conferred upon the Rule making authority under Section 9 which is the charging section, by way of an amendment to the Rule. The totalisator is brought under a taxable event without it being so defined under the Act nor power being conferred in terms of the charging section which renders the Rule being made beyond the provisions of the Act. The same follows to the impugned KSGST Rules which are identical to the impugned CGST Rules. Therefore, Rule 31A(3) which does not conform to the provisions of the Act will have to be held ultra vires the enabling Act and consequently opens itself for being struck down.”
