Bridge tournaments for money don't qualify as specified actionable claims under GST Act 2017

The AAR, West Bengal ruled that organizing bridge tournaments for money does not constitute supply of specified actionable claims under GST Act, 2017. The applicant organized tournaments where players contributed money to a common pool without the organizer retaining any platform fee or having lien over the contributions. While organizing tournaments qualifies as supply of services, the organizer cannot be considered a supplier of specified actionable claims since they neither provide online platforms nor retain money from player deposits. The ruling distinguished between organizing tournaments and supplying actionable claims, concluding the applicant is not liable for GST on organizing physical bridge tournaments played for money.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the application for advance ruling.
2. Determination of taxability under the GST Act for physical/offline game of bridge when played for money/prize.
3. Classification of contributions/participation money collected from players or winnings from physical/offline games of bridge under the GST Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of the Application:
- Section 97 of the GST Act: The applicant has made this application under sub-section (1) of Section 97 of the GST Act seeking an advance ruling.
- Place of Business: The application was initially found to be devoid of any address in the State of West Bengal, indicating that the applicant doesn't have any place of business in the state.
- Section 95 of the GST Act: The applicant argued that the GST Act does not require a place of business in the state before filing an application for advance ruling. The applicant submits that it is desirous of obtaining registration in the state if required under the law.
- Authority's Observation: The GST Act unequivocally requires an applicant either to be registered or desirous of obtaining registration to make an application for advance ruling. The Authority admitted the application considering the local address provided by the applicant.

2. Determination of Taxability under the GST Act for Physical/Offline Game of Bridge When Played for Money/Prize:
- Applicant's Argument: The applicant contends that contributions/participation money collected from players or winnings from physical/offline games of bridge do not qualify as 'specified actionable claims' under Section 2(102A) of the GST Act, 2017.
- Legal Definitions and Judgments:
- Public Gambling Act, 1867: Excludes games like Bridge from being treated as 'betting' and 'gambling'.
- West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act, 1957: Excludes games of skill from the ambit of gambling and betting.
- Supreme Court Judgments: In cases like State of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana and Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N., the game of Bridge is considered a game of skill and not gambling.
- Amendment in Schedule III of the GST Act: The amendment substituted 'specified actionable claims' for 'lottery, betting and gambling'. The applicant argues that Bridge does not fall under the category of 'specified actionable claims' which includes betting, casinos, gambling, horse racing, lottery, or online money gaming.
- Authority's Findings: The Authority agrees that Bridge is a game of skill and does not fall under 'specified actionable claims'. Therefore, organizing a tournament of Bridge when played for money does not attract GST.

3. Classification of Contributions/Participation Money Collected from Players or Winnings from Physical/Offline Games of Bridge under the GST Act:
- Applicant's Submission: The applicant is not collecting any participation fees for organizing physical tournaments of Bridge or any fee as a totalizator. The contributions are deposited in a common pool, and an independent person sponsors the prize money.
- Authority's Findings: Organizing a tournament and allowing players to take part against a participation fee qualifies as a supply of services. However, since the applicant does not retain any amount of money as a 'platform fee' and does not have a lien over the money contributed by players, it cannot be held to be engaged in the supply of 'specified actionable claims'.

Ruling:
The applicant cannot be held to be a supplier of 'specified actionable claim' and therefore shall not be liable to pay tax by way of organizing a tournament of physical/offline games of contract bridge when played for money.

---