Court Upholds GST on IPL Tickets, Dismisses PIL on Newspaper Reports

The court allowed the impeachment of respondent Nos. 7 & 8, upheld the liability of GST on complimentary tickets for IPL matches, and dismissed the PIL based on newspaper reports due to lack of substantial evidence. The petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the court with credible material to support the allegations made in the petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Impeachment of respondent Nos. 7 & 8
2. Liability of GST on complimentary tickets for IPL matches
3. Validity of PIL based on newspaper reports

Impeachment of Respondent Nos. 7 & 8:
The petitioner sought impeachment of respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in the petition, which was allowed by the court. An amendment was directed to be made in the cause-title to reflect this change.

Liability of GST on Complimentary Tickets for IPL Matches:
The petitioner filed a PIL seeking direction for respondent No. 1 to pay GST on complimentary tickets distributed for IPL matches at Usha Raje Holkar Stadium. The petitioner alleged that Kings XI Punjab took the stadium for matches and distributed free passes worth Rs. 80.00 lac. The Authority For Advance Ruling stated that complimentary tickets fall under the definition of supply under the GST Act, making them liable for GST payment. The petitioner urged for an investigation through CBI to recover the GST from the recipients.

Validity of PIL Based on Newspaper Reports:
The petition was primarily based on a local newspaper report about the distribution of free passes to Collector without substantial evidence. The court referred to previous judgments where PILs based solely on newspaper reports were dismissed by the Apex Court. Citing the need for credible material, the court dismissed the petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the court with credible evidence in the future.

In conclusion, the court allowed the impeachment of respondent Nos. 7 & 8, upheld the liability of GST on complimentary tickets for IPL matches, and dismissed the PIL based on newspaper reports due to lack of substantial evidence. The petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the court with credible material to support the allegations made in the petition.

---