Lottery promoter status and draw limits under the statutory scheme were construed scheme-wise, not as a collective cap.

Under the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005, a person appointed by the foreign Government to sell lottery tickets in Kerala could be treated as the promoter, and the authorities could not refuse levy by probing internal commercial arrangements once that appointment was asserted. Under the Central lottery regime, the weekly draw restriction applied scheme-wise rather than as a total cap on all schemes, and the rules permitting multiple draws for different lotteries were not cut down by a one-draw-per-week or six-bumper-draws-per-year limit. The restrictive interpretation was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tax authorities under the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 were bound to accept levy from the writ petitioner as the promoter of the Bhutan Government's lotteries. (ii) Whether the Central Act and the Central Rules permitted only one draw per week for an organising State and only six bumper draws in a year.

Issue (i): Whether the tax authorities under the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 were bound to accept levy from the writ petitioner as the promoter of the Bhutan Government's lotteries.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes an "agent" from a "promoter". A promoter includes a person appointed by the Government concerned to sell lottery tickets in Kerala when that Government is not directly selling tickets in the State. The Bhutan Government maintained that the writ petitioner remained its authorised promoter, and the Central Government's communication also supported that position. Once the Bhutan Government asserted that appointment, the State authorities had no jurisdiction to insist on probing the underlying commercial arrangements with intermediaries or to refuse levy on the ground that the petitioner was not the real promoter.

Conclusion: The authorities under the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 were bound to receive levy from the petitioner as promoter of the Bhutan Government's lotteries.

Issue (ii): Whether the Central Act and the Central Rules permitted only one draw per week for an organising State and only six bumper draws in a year.

Analysis: The Central Act permits an organising State to organise or promote lotteries subject to the conditions in Section 4, while the Rules contemplate more than one lottery scheme and require separate compliance for each lottery. The weekly draw restriction in Section 4(h) operates scheme-wise, not as a cap on the total number of schemes. Rule 3(6) allowing up to twenty-four draws per day, except bumper draws, does not cut down the statutory scheme. The earlier observation relied on by the learned single Judge was not treated as laying down a binding rule on this point.

Conclusion: The interpretation limiting an organising State to one draw per week and six bumper draws a year was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded on the promoter issue and on the construction of the lottery law, while the State's challenge to the direction for acceptance of levy failed. The restrictive direction concerning the number of draws was vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute defines promoter by reference to appointment by the concerned Government and the regulatory framework permits multiple lottery schemes, the State cannot refuse levy by questioning internal commercial arrangements, and the weekly draw restriction applies to each lottery scheme rather than to all schemes collectively.

---