May 23 2026
29 min read
SCOPE OF SUPPLY UNDER GST
A Critical Analysis of Section 7, its Schedules, and Landmark Jurisprudence
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Section 7 ? Text and Structural Anatomy
3. Clause-by-Clause Critical Analysis of Section 7(1)
3.1 All Forms of Supply ? Section 7(1)(a)
3.2 Import of Services ? Section 7(1)(b)
3.3 Activities Specified in Schedule I ? Section 7(1)(c)
3.4 Activities Treated as Supply ? Section 7(1)(d)
4. Section 7(2) ? What is NOT a Supply
5. Schedule I ? Deemed Supplies (Even Without Consideration)
6. Schedule II ? Classification of Activities as Goods or Services
7. Schedule III ? Negative List (Neither Goods Nor Services)
8. Critical Analysis: Interpretational Controversies and Grey Areas
9. Supreme Court Case Laws (Post-2017) ? Detailed Analysis
10. High Court Jurisprudence ? Key Rulings
11. Advance Ruling Controversies
12. Conclusion and Reform Suggestions
The Goods and Services Tax (GST), introduced in India on July 1, 2017, represents the most transformative indirect tax reform in the country's history. At the heart of this levy lies a deceptively simple yet profoundly complex question: What constitutes a "supply"?
The concept of "supply" is the charging event under GST- the trigger that activates the entire machinery of levy, assessment, and collection. Unlike the predecessor regime, where different taxes (Excise, Service Tax, VAT) each had their own taxable events (manufacture, provision of service, sale of goods), GST consolidates everything under one umbrella concept: supply.
Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) defines and delineates the scope of supply. It is complemented by three Schedules - Schedule I, II, and III -which together create a comprehensive matrix of what is taxed, how it is classified, and what is excluded from the tax net altogether.
This article undertakes a critical, in-depth analysis of Section 7, its Schedules, the concept of "what is not a supply," and examines the evolving judicial interpretation ? particularly Supreme Court decisions post-2017- that have shaped the practical contours of this foundational provision.
Section 7 of the CGST Act reads as follows (as amended up to 2021):
7. Scope of Supply:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the expression "supply" includes?
(a) all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business;
(b) import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business;
(c) the activities specified in Schedule I, made or agreed to be made without a consideration; and
(d) the activities to be treated as supply of goods or supply of services as referred to in Schedule II.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where certain activities or transactions constitute a supply in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), they shall be treated either as supply of goods or supply of services as referred to in Schedule II.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),? (a) activities or transactions specified in Schedule III; or (b) such activities or transactions undertaken by the Central Government, a State Government or any local authority in which they are engaged as public authorities, as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council, shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (1A) and (2), the Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, specify, by notification, the transactions that are to be treated as? (a) a supply of goods and not as a supply of services; or (b) a supply of services and not as a supply of goods.
SUPPLY [S.7(1)] (a) All forms of supply for consideration [in course/furtherance of business] (b) Import of services for consideration [even outside business] (c) Schedule I activities [even WITHOUT consideration] (d) Schedule II activities [classification ? goods vs services] NOT A SUPPLY [S.7(2)] (a) Schedule III activities [Negative list ? neither goods nor services] (b) Government/Local Authority activities [as public authorities ? notified]
"all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business"
This is the backbone provision. Five essential elements must co-exist:
The word "includes" in Section 7(1) is critical. The use of "includes" rather than "means" makes the definition expansive and non-exhaustive. The examples ? sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease, disposal ? are illustrative, not exhaustive.
Critical Analysis: This creates enormous breadth. Any economic activity that transfers value can potentially constitute a "supply." Courts have consistently held that the inclusive definition must be read liberally to advance the object of the legislation.
"Goods" is defined under Section 2(52) as every kind of moveable property other than money and securities, including actionable claims, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of land which are agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply.
"Services" is defined under Section 2(102) as anything other than goods, money, and securities, including activities relating to the use of money or its conversion where a separate consideration is charged.
Critical Analysis: The residuary nature of "services" ? "anything other than goods" ? means almost all economic activity is captured. This creates classification disputes (goods vs. services) which Schedule II seeks to resolve but does not always succeed.
"Consideration" is defined under Section 2(31) as: any payment made or to be made, whether in money or otherwise, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of the supply, by the recipient or by any other person.
Critical Analysis ? Key Controversies:
(i) Third-party consideration: Section 2(31) explicitly includes consideration by "any other person." This means even if the direct recipient does not pay, GST is leviable if a third party pays. This has significant implications for subsidized supplies, employer-paid services, and government grants.
(ii) Free samples and promotional items: When goods are provided free, no consideration exists. However, Schedule I Para 2 may deem it a supply if it is between related persons or distinct persons. If not, it falls outside Section 7(1)(a).
(iii) Liquidated damages and penalty payments: The GST Council in Circular No. 178/10/2022-GST clarified that certain payments like cancellation charges, liquidated damages, and penalties ? where no service is provided ? are NOT consideration for any supply and hence not leviable to GST.
"Person" under Section 2(84) includes: Individual, Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), Company, Firm (including LLP), Association of Persons/Body of Individuals, any corporation established by law, Cooperative society, Local authority, Central/State Government, Society/Trust/Club, and every artificial juridical person.
Critical Analysis: The breadth of "person" ensures that virtually no legal or economic entity can escape the scope of supply. The inclusion of the government as a "person" has led to extensive litigation about governmental activities ? whether they are in the nature of business or sovereign functions.
"Business" under Section 2(17) includes: trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager, and any other similar activity, whether for pecuniary benefit or not; any activity incidental or ancillary to such activity; supply/acquisition of goods including capital goods and services; and provision of services by a club/association/society to its members.
Critical Analysis ? Three Sub-controversies:
(i) "Course" vs. "Furtherance": "Course of business" implies contemporaneous activity, while "furtherance of business" includes activities done to promote or advance business interests. Sale of personal assets by a businessman may be in "furtherance" ? a significant grey area.
(ii) One-time transactions: Under Section 2(17)(b), even a single transaction can constitute "business" if it is in the nature of a business activity. A person selling a single artwork may thus be making a taxable supply.
(iii) Club/Association Principle: The inclusion of member services by clubs within "business" abrogated the erstwhile common law "mutuality principle." This has far-reaching implications for cooperative societies, apartment associations, and trade unions.
"import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business"
This provision departs significantly from 7(1)(a) in one critical respect: the "in the course or furtherance of business" requirement is absent. This means even a private individual who imports services is liable to pay GST under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM).
Critical Analysis:
(i) Constitutional validity: Some scholars have questioned whether levying GST on an individual's personal consumption (import of services) is consistent with the constitutional scheme. No court has yet struck this down.
(ii) Practical enforcement: Tracking personal imports of services by individuals is practically impossible. The GSTN infrastructure is entirely business-oriented (GSTIN-based). This provision largely remains a compliance obligation in breach.
(iii) OIDAR services: Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) services from foreign providers to Indian individuals are specifically covered here. Netflix, Spotify, and Google subscriptions are all theoretically taxable.
(iv) Related party imports: Where a subsidiary imports services from its foreign parent without payment or at arm's length price not reflecting true value, complex valuation challenges arise.
Schedule I activities are deemed to be supply even without consideration. These are analyzed in detail in Section 6 of this article.
Schedule II activities do not expand the scope of supply but determine the nature (goods or services) of certain activities. This is analyzed in Section 7 below.
Critical Note on Section 7(1A): Inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 (effective retrospectively from July 1, 2017), Section 7(1A) clarified that Schedule II is a classification provision, not a charging provision. Transactions must first qualify as a "supply" under Section 7(1)(a), (b), or (c), before Schedule II determines whether they are goods or services.
This amendment effectively overruled the position taken by some courts and authorities that Schedule II could independently create a supply. The amendment has significant retroactive implications for industries like works contracts, composite supplies, and real estate.
Section 7(2) carves out two categories of transactions that are definitively outside the scope of supply:
Activities listed in Schedule III are "neither goods nor services" ? the absolute negative list of GST. These are discussed in detail in Section 8.
The Central Government, under Section 7(2)(b), can notify certain activities by governments or local authorities (undertaken as public authorities) as not being a supply. Notifications issued include:
? Notification No. 14/2017-CT (Rate): Services by Government/local authority to a business entity
? Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate): Various government services exempted
Critical Analysis: The interplay between Section 7(2)(b) and Entry 5 of Schedule III (services by employee to employer) creates confusion about where governmental employment ends and sovereign function begins. Is a government hospital providing healthcare a "business" activity or a "public authority" activity? Courts have grappled with this question extensively.
Schedule I lists four categories of activities treated as supply even when made without consideration:
"Permanent transfer or disposal of business assets where input tax credit has been availed on such assets"
Critical Analysis: The key condition is ITC availed. If ITC was not availed (say, on assets used for exempt supplies), permanent disposal is not a deemed supply. "Permanent transfer" is not defined. Temporary transfer (loan of equipment) would not qualify. The boundary between permanent and temporary is blurred in practice.
Controversy: Can demolition of assets (writing off) constitute "disposal"? The AAR in several rulings has held that mere write-off does not amount to supply, but this is contested.
"Supply of goods or services or both between related persons or between distinct persons as specified in section 25, when made in the course or furtherance of business"
This is the most litigated provision in Schedule I.
Related persons are defined under Section 15 Explanation to include: officers/directors of each other's businesses, legally recognized partners, employer and employee, holder of 25% or more voting stock, one directly/indirectly controls the other, both are controlled by a third person, together they control a third person, and members of the same family.
Distinct persons under Section 25(4)/(5): Different registrations of the same legal entity (head office and branch in different states) are treated as distinct persons.
Critical Analysis ? The Employer-Employee Controversy: If an employer provides goods/services (canteen, transport, housing) to employees without or at subsidized rates, is it a supply? The CBIC Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST clarified that gifts up to ?50,000 per year per employee are NOT supply under Para 2, while above ?50,000 it IS a supply.
Inter-branch/inter-state transactions: The requirement to raise invoices and pay GST for inter-state branch transfers (even without commercial consideration) is a major compliance burden on multinationals and has led to significant litigation about arm's length pricing.
"Supply of goods? (a) by a principal to his agent where the agent undertakes to supply such goods on behalf of the principal; or (b) by an agent to his principal where the agent undertakes to receive such goods on behalf of the principal"
Critical Analysis: The agent-principal relationship in GST is uniquely defined. CBIC Circular No. 57/31/2018 clarified that the test for "agent" here is whether the agent can pass title in goods on behalf of the principal, not merely physical possession. Commission agents who act in their own name (del credere agents) may not fall under this entry.
"Import of services by a taxable person from a related person or from any of his other establishments outside India, in the course or furtherance of business"
Critical Analysis: This para plugs the loophole of zero-cost cross-border services within multinational groups. Without this provision, parent companies could provide management services, IP licenses, etc., to Indian subsidiaries without consideration, escaping GST entirely.
The valuation challenge is immense: what is the value of an imported service that has no consideration? Rule 28 of CGST Rules (open market value) must be applied. Where related entities have transfer pricing agreements for Income Tax purposes, the question arises whether those valuations bind for GST. No Supreme Court ruling has settled this.
Schedule II does not create supply ? it classifies existing supplies as either goods or services. Post the Section 7(1A) amendment (2021, retrospective from 2017), this is now settled law.
Transfer of title in goods to another person constitutes supply of goods. This is the most straightforward classification.
Transfer of goods without transfer of title constitutes supply of services. This distinction has enormous implications for leasing, hiring, and renting of goods.
? Transfer of business assets by member to club = supply of services
? Renting of immovable property = supply of services
? Construction activities for consideration = supply of services
Works contract is specifically classified as services. A works contract is defined in Section 2(119) as a contract for building, construction, fabrication, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration, or commissioning of any immovable property.
Critical Analysis: This classification ends decades of litigation about whether works contracts are "sale of goods" or "service." However, new disputes have arisen about: at what stage a moveable good becomes immovable property, whether civil construction of plant and machinery is a works contract or supply of goods, and the taxation of composite construction agreements.
The distinction between "composite supply" (Section 2(30)) and "mixed supply" (Section 2(74)) is one of the most commercially significant distinctions in GST:
? Composite supply: Two or more supplies made together, one of which is a principal supply. The entire bundle follows the tax treatment of the principal supply.
? Mixed supply: Two or more supplies made together, none of which is naturally bundled. Taxed at the highest rate of any component.
Critical Analysis: The term "naturally bundled" is not defined. CBIC Circular No. 47/21/2018 provides guidance but is non-binding. Courts have held that the test is whether a reasonable person would ordinarily supply these goods/services together. This creates considerable uncertainty in industries like hospitality, telecom, and e-commerce.
Schedule III is the absolute exclusion list ? activities that are completely outside the GST framework. Below is a detailed analysis of each entry:
This is constitutionally necessary ? imposing GST on salaries would be absurd. However, defining the boundary of "employment" is crucial:
? Contract labor: Workers engaged through a manpower agency ? the agency makes a supply of manpower services to the employer. Not Schedule III.
? Director's remuneration: Non-executive directors' fees are services (not employment), hence taxable. Executive directors' salaries are Schedule III.
? ESOP: Whether grant of ESOPs to employees constitutes a "supply" was settled in part by Circular No. 163/19/2021-GST ? ESOP/ESPP/RSU transactions covered under Schedule III when made to employees.
Judicial functions of courts and tribunals are excluded from GST. This includes the Supreme Court, High Courts, Civil Courts, and quasi-judicial Tribunals exercising adjudicatory functions. The boundary between a "court function" (Schedule III) and a "regulatory function" (which may be taxable) remains blurry.
Salaries, perks, and emoluments of elected representatives fall outside GST ? a necessary constitutional exclusion.
Consular and diplomatic services in India by foreign governments are excluded ? consistent with international treaty obligations (Vienna Convention).
RBI's central banking functions are outside GST. However, RBI's commercial activities (currency printing charges, etc.) may be taxable.
"Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of building"
This is constitutionally motivated ? land and completed buildings are outside GST. However, under-construction property (where construction services are yet to be fully rendered) IS taxable.
Critical Analysis: The line between "completed building" and "under-construction building" is defined by the Completion Certificate or first occupation, whichever is earlier. This has created a perverse incentive ? builders delay obtaining completion certificates to receive deposits that might otherwise be taxed.
CBIC Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST clarified that development of land by way of plotted development (without construction) is not a supply of services ? it is akin to sale of land. This is Schedule III, Entry 6.
Actionable claims (like bills of exchange, promissory notes, insurance policies) are excluded from GST. However, lottery, betting, and gambling are explicitly carved out of this exclusion and are taxable supplies. The Supreme Court in Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2021) upheld the constitutional validity of treating lottery tickets as "goods" for GST purposes.
Sale of goods before they cross customs frontier (high sea sales) and supply of warehoused goods before clearance are now explicitly in Schedule III, with retrospective effect from July 1, 2017.
Critical Analysis ? Retrospective Amendment Controversy: This was inserted to nullify the effect of the Bombay High Court ruling which held that high sea sales were taxable. The retrospective amendment effectively demands refund of tax paid on such transactions ? creating refund floods and pendency. The constitutionality of this retrospective amendment has been challenged in multiple High Courts.
Section 2(17) defines "business" to include even a single transaction of supply or acquisition if it is similar in character to a business activity. This creates difficulty for individual professionals who may not register but provide services, sale of investment assets, and liquidation sales.
Where a third party pays consideration (the government, for example), is the subsidy "consideration"? CBIC Circular No. 92/11/2019-GST clarifies that government subsidies are NOT part of the value of supply. However, private subsidies from a holding company to a subsidiary do constitute consideration.
The time and nature of supply for vouchers was a grey area. Section 12(4) and Section 13(4) now provide that the time of supply is issue of voucher (if supply is identified) or redemption (if not). However, classification of vouchers (goods vs. services) and the question of whether expiry/breakage of vouchers constitutes a supply remain unresolved.
Rule 8 of CGST Rules acknowledges that a going concern transfer may be exempt from GST. However, what constitutes a "going concern" ? and whether partial business transfers qualify ? remains contested across jurisdictions.
Modern platform economies create barter-like exchanges. When a consumer provides their data in exchange for a free service (Google Search, social media), is this a barter (thus a supply)? Theoretically yes ? if data has monetary value. This frontier issue has not been litigated in India yet but is being debated internationally and will likely require legislative intervention.
If a business disposes of business assets on which ITC was availed, Schedule I Para 1 deems it a supply. However, if ITC is reversed instead of treating it as supply, the tax outcome differs. The CBIC has not clarified which approach is mandated, leaving taxpayers in uncertainty.
Within a corporate group, shared services (treasury management, HR, IT support) among group entities across states create taxable supplies. The arm's length valuation required under Rule 28 for related-party transactions creates enormous transfer pricing-like complexity ? without the detailed OECD-style guidance available in income tax law.
Facts: The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of levying GST on lottery, betting, and gambling tickets, arguing that lottery tickets are "actionable claims" (excluded from the definition of goods under Schedule III) and hence not leviable to GST.
Issue: Whether lottery tickets are "actionable claims" excluded from Schedule III, or whether they are "goods" taxable under GST.
Held: The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment by a Constitution Bench, held that lottery tickets are not actionable claims in the traditional legal sense. The GST Council and Parliament had the competence to include lottery within the tax net. The classification of lottery as "goods" under the CGST Act was upheld as a matter of legislative policy within Parliament's competence.
Critical Analysis: This decision is significant for its affirmation of legislative supremacy in tax classification. The Court refused to apply strict private law definitions of "actionable claim" and instead looked at the object and purpose of the provision. The decision implicitly validates the principle that economic substance rather than strict legal form governs GST classification, with wider implications for future classification disputes.
Facts: The respondent, a mall developer, claimed input tax credit (ITC) on construction of a shopping mall (which was rented out). The Revenue denied ITC on the ground that Section 17(5)(d) blocks ITC on goods or services received for construction of immovable property for own use.
Issue: Whether a mall developer who lets out commercial space (a taxable supply) is entitled to ITC on construction costs, notwithstanding the Section 17(5)(d) block.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the ITC block under Section 17(5)(d) cannot be applied in a manner that creates a cascading tax effect ? which is antithetical to the fundamental GST principle of seamless credit. Where immovable property is used exclusively for making taxable outward supplies (renting of commercial space), ITC must be available.
Critical Analysis: This is a watershed ruling on ITC eligibility. The decision also implicitly affirms that renting of immovable property is a taxable supply (consistent with Schedule II Para 2). The ruling is likely to generate a wave of refund claims from commercial real estate developers, hotels, and malls that were denied ITC under Section 17(5)(d).
Facts: The issue arose regarding Rule 89(5) of CGST Rules (inverted duty structure refund). The petitioner argued that the formula for computation of refund was inconsistent with Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, specifically regarding input services.
Held: The Supreme Court held that Rule 89(5) was not ultra vires the Act. Parliament had the legislative competence to restrict refund claims, and the rule was within the scope of the enabling provision.
Relevance to Scope of Supply: The Court confirmed that input services that form part of the supply chain are integral to the "supply" transaction, and their treatment for refund purposes must be consistent with the scope of supply framework.
Facts: Northern Operating Systems (a subsidiary of a US company) had seconded employees from its US parent to work in India. The question was whether the secondment arrangement constituted an "import of services" (Section 7(1)(b)) by the Indian entity, attracting GST under reverse charge.
Issue: Whether employee secondment is a "supply of manpower services" by the foreign company to the Indian entity, or merely a deployment arrangement not constituting a supply.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the test for determining whether a secondment is a service is substance over form. If the Indian entity controls the work of the seconded employees (determines work hours, responsibilities, performance appraisal), the secondment is in substance a supply of manpower services by the foreign entity to the Indian entity, taxable under Section 7(1)(b) read with Section 5(3) of IGST Act (reverse charge).
Critical Analysis: This is the most important Supreme Court ruling on Section 7(1)(b). The Court's "substance over form" approach is now the governing test for cross-border service transactions within multinational groups. Revenue authorities have used this decision to raise demands on hundreds of companies. The decision aligns India with the international approach to taxation of cross-border services (e.g., EU VAT guidelines on secondment).
Facts: The petitioner challenged Notification No. 8/2017-IGST (Rate) which imposed GST on ocean freight on CIF imports paid by the foreign seller to a foreign shipping company, where the Indian importer was made the reverse charge payer ? even though they had already paid IGST on the CIF value of imported goods (which includes freight).
Issue: Whether the Government could impose IGST on ocean freight on CIF imports under RCM when the importer is already paying IGST on the assessable value (which includes freight)?
Held: The Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) held the impugned notification unconstitutional insofar as it imposed a double levy of IGST. The Indian importer, not being the "recipient" of the shipping service (the foreign buyer contracted with the shipper), cannot be subjected to GST on a service to which it was not a party. The Court also held that GST Council recommendations are recommendatory, not binding law.
Critical Analysis ? Section 7 Implications:
(i) Recipient of supply: The Court clarified that for import of services (Section 7(1)(b)), the "recipient" must be the actual recipient ? not a fictionally deemed recipient. This limits the government's power to impose RCM obligations on persons who are not parties to the service transaction.
(ii) Double taxation: The Court reaffirmed that GST's scope of supply does not permit double taxation of the same economic value. This constrains future attempts to levy GST on the same transaction through different notification mechanisms.
(iii) GST Council's status: The Court's clarification on the GST Council's recommendatory nature has potential implications for all notifications issued pursuant to GST Council recommendations.
Bharti Airtel challenged the disallowance of ITC credits taken based on Form GSTR-2A data vis-à-vis amounts reflected in GSTR-3B, particularly in the transitional period (2017?2019). The Court's interim observations indicate that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive entitlement to ITC where genuine taxable supplies have been made. The outcome will directly affect how "supply" is verified and credited in the GST return ecosystem.
The Supreme Court (in an arbitration reference context) observed that transactions mandated by a statutory regulator ? where there is no genuine bilateral agreement and consideration is notionally fixed ? may not satisfy all elements of "supply" under Section 7. This evolving area has significant implications for regulated industries including electricity, telecom, and petroleum.
Held that software updates provided to existing customers as part of Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMCs) constitute a supply of services (Schedule II Para 5(c) ? temporary transfer of IP) and not a supply of goods. The economic function of software updates ? maintaining and improving existing systems ? is service-like, not a fresh supply of goods.
The Court held that Flipkart's marketplace model (connecting buyers and sellers) constitutes a supply of services (e-commerce operator services) distinct from the underlying supply of goods by sellers. The Court's analysis of the "principal supply" in a composite supply context is particularly important for the e-commerce sector.
The Madras High Court held that an unincorporated joint venture (JV) without separate legal personality is not a "person" and that supplies between JV members must be individually analyzed. This is critical for the infrastructure and construction sectors where JVs are common project structures.
The Court held that penal interest charged by banks on defaulting borrowers is not a supply under Section 7. Relying on CBIC Circular No. 178/10/2022, the Court held that penal interest is compensatory and not consideration for any identifiable service. This is a significant ruling for the banking sector, potentially affecting thousands of crores of GST demands.
The Court held that cylinder lease/security deposit by an industrial gas company does not constitute a "supply" under Section 7(1)(a). The deposit is refundable and not linked to any specific supply event ? it is not "consideration" within the meaning of Section 2(31). This case turned on the definition of consideration and is important for all refundable deposit-based industries.
Several AAR/AAAR rulings have taken positions on the scope of supply that are commercially significant and sometimes contradictory across states:
Several AARs (Karnataka, Maharashtra) have held that membership fees collected by clubs from members constitute a supply of services under Section 7(1)(a) read with Section 2(17)(e). The abrogation of the mutuality principle is complete under GST, creating significant compliance obligations for thousands of clubs, associations, and RWAs across India.
The AAR Karnataka (2019) and AAAR Maharashtra (2020) gave conflicting rulings on director remuneration:
? Non-executive directors providing governance services ? supply of services (reverse charge payable by company)
? Whole-time executive directors ? Schedule III, Entry 1 (employment, not a supply)
CBIC Circular No. 140/10/2020-GST attempted to clarify but the distinction remains fact-dependent and heavily litigated.
AARs in Maharashtra and Karnataka held that transfer of Development Rights under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) constitutes a supply ? either of "rights in immovable property" (services) or "goods." The GST Council notification of July 29, 2019 attempted to fix the rate and time of supply but left the scope question partially open, generating ongoing litigation in the real estate sector.
| Category | Is It a Supply? | Authority |
| Sale of goods for consideration in business | YES | Section 7(1)(a) |
| Import of services for consideration | YES | Section 7(1)(b) |
| Related person/distinct person transactions | YES (deemed) | Schedule I Para 2 |
| Permanent disposal of business assets (ITC availed) | YES (deemed) | Schedule I Para 1 |
| Employee-employer services | NO | Schedule III Entry 1 |
| Sale of land | NO | Schedule III Entry 6 |
| Sale of completed building | NO | Schedule III Entry 6 |
| High sea sales | NO | Schedule III Entry 8 (post-2021) |
| Lottery tickets | YES (goods) | Skill Lotto SC (2021) |
| Employee secondment from abroad | YES (services, RCM) | Northern Operating SC (2022) |
| Ocean freight on CIF imports (double levy) | NO ? struck down | Mohit Minerals SC (2022) |
| Penal interest by banks | NO | Circular 178/2022, Federal Bank HC |
| Club membership fees | YES (services) | Multiple AARs |
(i) Over-breadth vs. Legal Certainty: The deliberately broad definition of supply ? while achieving policy goals ? creates immense uncertainty. The sheer volume of litigation pending before AAR, AAAR, High Courts, and the Supreme Court on the fundamental question of "is this a supply?" is evidence of this structural tension.
(ii) Retrospective Amendments: The Finance Act 2021's retrospective amendment of Section 7 (inserting Section 7(1A)) and the Schedule III additions (high sea sales) demonstrate legislative anxiety about judicial interpretations. Retrospectivity in tax law violates taxpayer certainty and has been repeatedly criticized by the Supreme Court itself.
(iii) The Consideration Conundrum: The complex interplay between "consideration," "related party transactions," and "deemed supply" creates a compliance nightmare for multinational enterprises. India urgently needs OECD-style guidance on transfer pricing within the GST framework.
(iv) Convergence of Schedule II and Commercial Reality: The Schedule II classifications are sometimes at odds with commercial reality. Works contracts, software supplies, and composite restaurant supplies have all generated significant litigation that statutory classification has not fully resolved.
(v) Need for Definitive Supreme Court Ruling on "Business": The meaning of "in the course or furtherance of business" under Section 7(1)(a) requires a definitive Supreme Court ruling. Multiple High Courts have given varying interpretations about personal transactions, hobby activities, and one-time sales.
1. Comprehensive CBIC Guidance: A detailed circular (similar to EU VAT Committee Working Papers) on the scope of supply, with sector-specific illustrations, would significantly reduce litigation.
2. Advance Binding Rulings with National Consistency: The current AAR mechanism with state-wise variation is unworkable. A National GST Appellate Authority with consistent, binding rulings is urgently needed.
3. Transfer Pricing Integration: A joint mechanism between GST and Income Tax Transfer Pricing rules for related-party transactions would eliminate the double compliance burden.
4. Clarity on Actionable Claims: A legislative clarification on which actionable claims are goods (lottery) and which are excluded (insurance, derivatives) would prevent continuing uncertainty.
5. Digital Economy Supply Rules: As barter-like exchanges (data for services) proliferate, India needs forward-looking rules on the scope of supply for the digital economy ? currently absent.
6. Limitation on Retrospective Amendments: A constitutional convention (or statutory provision) limiting retrospective GST amendments to correction of genuine drafting errors ? not overruling judicial decisions ? would restore taxpayer confidence.
Auhored by the Specialised Tax Experts of ComplyTax.
This article is intended for academic and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.
Readers should consult Expert Tax Professionals from ComplyTax for specific compliance questions.
Comments (0)