Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Lottery ticket sales not subject to service tax pre-2008. Promotion/marketing taxed constitutionally.

        Union of India & Ors. Versus M/s Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd.

        Union of India & Ors. Versus M/s Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 593 (SC) , 2009 (92) RLT 761 (SC), [2009] 20 STT 203 (SC), [2009] 24 VST ... Issues Involved:
        1. Whether the sale, promotion, and marketing of lottery tickets are exigible to 'Service Tax' under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994.
        2. Whether lottery tickets are considered 'goods' under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
        3. The retrospective application of the explanation appended to Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.
        4. The constitutional validity of imposing service tax on the promotion and marketing of lotteries.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Exigibility of Service Tax on Sale, Promotion, and Marketing of Lottery Tickets:
        The core question was whether the sale, promotion, and marketing of lottery tickets fall under 'Service Tax' as per Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondents, being agents of the State of Sikkim, purchase lottery tickets in bulk and sell them to principal stockists, who further distribute them. The High Court of Sikkim had earlier ruled that the activities of the respondents were not subject to service tax under 'business auxiliary service' as defined in Section 65(19) of the Act. However, the Supreme Court analyzed whether the activities involved constituted 'promotion or marketing of service provided by the client' under sub-clause (ii) of Section 65(19).

        2. Classification of Lottery Tickets as 'Goods':
        The Supreme Court referenced the Constitution Bench decision in Sunrise Associates, which held that lottery tickets are actionable claims and not 'goods' under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. This distinction was crucial because if lottery tickets are not 'goods,' the respondents cannot be said to be rendering services related to the promotion or marketing of goods. The Court reiterated that the sale of lottery tickets does not involve the transfer of goods but rather an actionable claim.

        3. Retrospective Application of Explanation to Section 65(19):
        The explanation appended to Section 65(19) by the Finance Act, 2008, was examined to determine if it was clarificatory or declaratory, thus having retrospective effect. The explanation included services related to the promotion or marketing of games of chance, including lotteries, under 'business auxiliary service.' The Court concluded that the explanation introduced a new concept and could not be considered merely clarificatory. Therefore, it could not have retrospective effect and would only apply from May 2008 onwards.

        4. Constitutional Validity of Imposing Service Tax:
        The Court discussed whether the Parliament had the authority to impose service tax on the promotion and marketing of lotteries, considering the entries in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which empower State Legislatures to tax betting, gambling, and other luxuries. The Supreme Court noted that while the State can impose taxes on the organization and conduct of lotteries, the service tax imposed by the Parliament on the services rendered in promoting and marketing lotteries is a separate aspect and constitutionally valid. However, this tax would only apply prospectively from May 2008, following the insertion of the explanation in Section 65(19).

        Conclusion:
        The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, albeit for different reasons, concluding that the activities of the respondents did not attract service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, prior to May 2008. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found