Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

C. On the aspect of Enlarging scope of "supply" by amending Section 7 of CGST Act without amending the Constitution -
impermissible and unconstitutional, the learned senior counsel would submit as follows:
● The Supreme Court has recognised the well-established concept of mutuality, and that a club/association is a self-serving institution, and that there could be no "sale"/"service" between a club and its members, and has further held [Calcutta Club] that even the 46th Amendment did not do away with mutuality. Thus, this was the position in law at the time of the 101st Amendment.
● Only the Constitution can expand what the Constitution has given: If this legislative power granted by the Constitution is to be expanded beyond the known legal connotations, it can be done only by a constitutional amendment doing away with the long-established and well-recognised concept of mutuality i.e., by a constitutional amendment which invests the Parliament and State legislature with the power to levy GST on self-sale/self-services between a club and its members. A statutory amendment, howsoever creatively worded, and ingeniously couched as a clarification, would not suffice.

● The appellant is a registered Society under the Travancore- Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration ct, 1955. It is an admitted position that in the event of termination of a member and even dissolution of the society, property of the association is not allowed to be distributed among the members, but is to be given to any other non-profitable organisation having the same objects in view of the provisions contained in the above said Act. It is legal entity which can sue and can be sued in its own name. Even in case of any dispute between the society and its members, the society is entitled to initiate proceedings against its members in the court of law. As such the concept of mutuality and that the association and the members are W.A.Nos.1659 & 1487/24 & 468/25 :: 31 ::

22. The issues considered in the aforesaid judgments are clearly distinguishable from the issue that confronts us in these proceedings. The concepts of "supply" and "service" having been judicially interpreted as requiring at least two persons - a provider and a recipient, for inferring their existence, and the Supreme Court having held in Calcutta Club [supra] that the principle of mutuality has survived the 46th amendment to the Constitution, so long as the said judgment holds sway as a binding precedent and/or the Constitution is not amended suitably to remove the concept of mutuality from the concepts of supply and service thereunder, the impugned amendment to the CGST/SGST Acts must necessarily fail the test of constitutionality.