Humanities desk
< August 29	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 30

Exploring the Applicability of the 'Business' Definition in Indian Central GST Legislation to Charitable Trusts

Referring to the Indian Central GST legislation's definition of "business," I'm exploring whether charitable trusts fall under the "business" category according to the description provided below. I'm particularly curious about how this classification applies to the charitable sector.

The Central Goods and Services Tax legislation's Clause 17 defines "business" as follows:

"business" includes –– (a) any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity, whether or not it is for a pecuniary benefit; (b) any activity or transaction in connection with or incidental or ancillary to sub-clause (a); (c) any activity or transaction in the nature of sub-clause (a), whether or not there is volume, frequency, continuity or regularity of such transaction; (d) supply or acquisition of goods including capital goods and services in connection with commencement or closure of business; (e) provision by a club, association, society, or any such body (for a subscription or any other consideration) of the facilities or benefits to its members; (f) admission, for a consideration, of persons to any premises; (g) services supplied by a person as the holder of an office which has been accepted by him in the course or furtherance of his trade, profession or vocation; (h) [activities of a race club including by way of totalisator or a license to book maker or activities of a licensed book maker in such club; and]5 (i) any activity or transaction undertaken by the Central Government, a State Government or any local authority in which they are engaged as public authorities;" Grotesquetruth (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charitable trusts have their own statutes. NPOs in India exist as trusts (Public charitable trusts, non revocable) , societies, and limited not-for-profit companies (I'm not sure trusts can exist currently otherwise than Public). NPOs provided Services: education and healthcare services are exempt under GST, income from some service activities are under exemption under a predetermined threshold limit. Regarding funding of the charity, provisions exist. --Askedonty (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how are NPOs treated under Indian GST? Grotesquetruth (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is noone to be specifically treated under GST (that's a GST difference with many aspects of the other kinds of taxations). With GST activities are taxed with the exception of specific provisions related to the nature of the activity. For example, GST may be set differently between classes of products. In India, education and healthcare services are exempted if they are dispensed by charities. If someone behind makes profit out of these services that will be under taxation, if the law is to be enforced.

To put things otherwise, like a business as stipulated in sub-clause (a) any trade - above: not for pecuniary benefit, a NPO would become a GST producer, or supplier, just as any other, as soon as it would be supplying goods or services, or both, that are liable to tax or not wholly exempt from tax under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act: India Code, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( NPOs as well as corporations by the way deemed jurisdic persons under the Indian law, which must be explaining the definition of "business" the way it's done with Clause 17 ).<updated> --Askedonty (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Indian GST clauses, is there a specific exemption for education and healthcare services with the assumption that if they be dispensed by charities like you mentioned? Can these services provided by charitable organizations be exempt from GST, and would any profits made from these services be subject to taxation under the GST law? Grotesquetruth (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the GST clauses I think its specifies that "the government may enact such and such exception, for the public good", "to be approved by such assembly", etc. In fact, most of those taxation exemptions (educational etc) are only identical for their objects to exemptions specified in older legislations (1961) and other. As for profits, see the part <updated> above. --Askedonty (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not offer tax or legal advice. Please seek professional advice. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Color wheel

Why do artists continue to use the ROYGBP color wheel and not the scientific RYGCBM color wheel?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither color wheel is "Scientific". The colors we use (and the names we give them) are a combination of linguistics, psychology, and aesthetics. Color itself is qualia, which is to say, it is a purely psychological phenomenon, with no real basis in physics. The color wheel is primarily a tool used by graphic designers and artists to aid in choosing color schemes for certain aesthetic effects. In that way, it is analogous to the circle of fifths for musicians; it is a visual aid that allows one to understand relationships to aid in composition and analysis. --Jayron 32 16:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the circle of fifths has a basis in physics; a fifth is the frequency ratio 2:3. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not why it is useful. It is useful because it helps composers and musicians understand the relationships between notes, chords, and key centers so as to compose aesthetically pleasing music. Which is exactly why the color wheel is useful, it helps artists and designers choose color schemes to compose aesthetically pleasing visual art. --Jayron 32 17:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article for ROYGBIP; should RYGCBM link somewhere? 136.54.106.120 (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I thought it was Roy G. Biv. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:E23B (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address tells me you're in California. I'm in the state of Victoria, Australia. I had never heard of Roy G. Biv until I met my wife, who grew up 1400 miles away in Queensland. We weren't taught any clever acronyms for remembering the colours. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:HiLo48, I think you and I are of a similar age. I had my primary school education in NSW, and I have a clear memory of being taught about Roy G Biv. It regularly crops up in TV quiz questions, so that seems to assume people of all ages are aware of it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The questions on most Australian TV quiz show come from Sydney. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I went to Catholic primary schools, whose teachers tended to be posted anywhere in the nation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that people of all age are still watching TV somewhere, even in Australia. --Askedonty (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I watch some TV and I'm definitely a person of all ages. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, very interesting - Reminds me of that joke about a spider that was stucked inside the telescope. That might have been about the shift from ROY to RYG, which was previsible to the well connected (we small fry were to get fascinated by the ubiquitous label AC/DC on the black backside tag of the fridge's transistor radio, that could work on C batteries, compare with the vacuum tube type). --Askedonty (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

In England, it always used to be "Richard of York Gave Battle In Vain". Not sure that modern schoolchildren know who Richard of York was. Alansplodge (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, in the reverse order they are "Virgins In Bed Give You Oral Relief". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that vein, I'm curious as to why the person who created the article went on to edit "Anal sex" three minutes later (although seeing the original version it's unsurprising). I never heard "Richard of York Gave Battle In Vain" till today, or of "Roy G. Biv." The source book in the article is American - we were taught "Read Out Your Green Book In Verse." The alternative version, in which the fourth word is changed, seems a tad disrespectful. 2A00:23A8:4015:F501:6D20:FFB9:EB08:D5A2 (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reflecting in my study, green had to be one of the Primary Colors: Natural Color System. Of course. --Askedonty (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English North America in the Civil War

The discussion above about Thomas Rolfe made me wonder about English North America during the Civil War, and with great interest I found and read English overseas possessions in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. The article discusses some colonies' support for the Parliamentary cause, and Parliamentary efforts to suppress royalist governments in some colonies, but it doesn't much discuss intercolonial relations. Was there fighting in North America between official forces or privateers of the different colonies (either before or after the regicide), or did they tend to tolerate each other? The article notes Virginia's desperate war with the Indians during the late years of the Civil War, and of course these civilised outposts were small and far separated from each other, but since some colonists returned to England to fight, I wondered if perhaps there was official strife between Royalist and Parliamentary colonies. The period conflict articles I've found are almost all against the Indians or foreign powers (e.g. Western Design), and the only exceptions are Plundering Time and Battle of the Severn, which appear to be a Maryland civil war, rather than warring between colonies. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that already, but it was an action of Parliament (not any colonial legislature), and the article doesn't discuss the extent to which it was followed. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the background information in it about the ways the different colonies had reacted might be of interest. Sorry to have troubled you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There was a strong Puritan tradition in the colonies (think: Pilgrim Fathers) which would tend to make them align with Parliamentary forces. Remember that the Civil War was not simply about Crown versus parliament, but also the Anglican establishment versus a more fundamental Christianity. Indeed, one of my ancestors left England for the colonies during the early Stuart period (can't recall if it was James VI/I or Charles I), only to return under the Commonwealth when it was safe to do so. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a strong element of Protestantism v. Catholicism, with many in England being fearful of the Monarchy's marital connections to and tolerance of the latter. This was not just religious bigotry – the Catholic nations of Europe, encouraged by the Papacy, had long considered and occasionally attempted military invasions of Britain, which had they succeeded might have resulted in wholesale executions of Protestants. And yes, Catholics were also persecuted in Britain – the rivalry was lethally vicious at a level difficult to imagine today. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea that several prominent English families decamped to the American colonies to avoid paying ship money, the only tax that Charles could levy without the consent of Parliament and which was the spark that eventually ignited the war (see the Five Members). Something about taxation without representation. Alansplodge (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you're talking about the English Civil War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously. Everyone else in this discussion knows which civil war they're talking about. --Viennese Waltz 07:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though not necessarily every reader of this section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could easily have worked it out for yourself. Most of us seem to have done so without too much difficulty. --Viennese Waltz 10:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which I did. I posted the link for the benefit of other readers. I could have changed the heading instead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which Civil War were you worried people might confuse it with? DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ask who, exactly? These hypothetical people who you think might have got confused? How do you suggest we approach them? --Viennese Waltz 07:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Bay Colony#Colonial history has some information, as does Colony of Virginia#English Civil War and Commonwealth (1642–1660). Massachusetts Bay and Virginia were the two most significant colonies at the time, indeed many of the other of the original Thirteen Colonies were founded after the Interregnum. The narrative is predictable from what I know about colonial history, Massachusetts Bay broadly supported the Parliamentarians, being of the same Puritan tradition as many of them, while the Virginians tended to be supportive of the crown, indeed I hadn't thought of it, but the University of Virginia sports teams are known as the Virginia Cavaliers, belieing their loyalties during the conflict. Also see Virginia Cavaliers (historical). --Jayron 32 14:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also a little bit more in the article Province of Maryland. --Jayron 32 14:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also the Battle of the Severn (Maryland, 1655). —— Shakescene (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Parliamentary side would have had no appeal at all for the Catholics in Maryland. On the original question, I imagine there was no actual fighting in North America, just as there was not in large parts of Britain. Most people were just thankful not to be involved, and enthusiasts could travel to where the armies were. Also the population was small and very spread out, not to mention with an Indian frontier. The big Parliamentary stronghold in the New World was Jamaica after Cromwell took it from the Spanish in 1655, and large plantations were handed out to Parliamentary sympathisers. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]