Exhaustive statutory definition in a taxing law barred expansion of promoter liability; only clearly covered persons can be taxed.

Under the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005, the Supreme Court held that the definition of "promoter" in Section 2(l) was exhaustive and could not be expanded by reference to other provisions. The respondent was only an agent of the sole selling agent, was contractually restricted in dealing with lottery tickets, and did not fall within the class of persons appointed by the State Government to sell tickets in Kerala on its behalf. Applying strict construction of taxing statutes, the Court held that no tax, registration, or related compliance liability could be imposed by implication or equitable considerations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was a "promoter" within the meaning of Section 2(l) of the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 so as to be liable to pay tax and comply with the registration and other obligations under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act.

Analysis: The definition of "promoter" in Section 2(l) was held to be exhaustive, using the words "means and includes", and therefore not open to expansion by reference to other provisions of the Act. The respondent was only an agent of the sole selling agent and was contractually barred from dealing with lottery tickets beyond the limits of the appointing arrangement. On those facts, the respondent did not fall within the class of persons appointed by the State Government to sell lottery tickets in Kerala on its behalf, and consequently could not be treated as a promoter. The references in other provisions of the Act to "any other person" were held relevant only to persons otherwise amenable to the charging scheme and could not enlarge the charging provision itself. Applying the settled rule that a taxing statute must be construed strictly and no liability can be created by implication or equitable considerations, the respondent could not be brought within the taxing net.

Conclusion: The respondent was not a promoter under Section 2(l) and was not liable to tax or registration under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: In a taxing statute, liability cannot be imposed by expansive interpretation or by reading words into an exhaustive charging definition; only persons clearly falling within the statutory text can be taxed.

---