https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276284 Entry 62 of List II was treated as conferring State power to tax betting and gambling, and lotteries were placed within that taxing field, so the Maharashtra Tax on Lotteries Act, 2006 was upheld as within legislative competence. The levy was characterised as a tax on the lottery scheme itself, with the draw used only as the measure, so it was not an extra-territorial tax or a tax on mere ticket sales. The charging provision was found sufficiently clear when read with the Act's definition of lottery, and the enactment was not treated as a colourable exercise of power. The constitutional challenge therefore failed. en-us Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jan 2019 16:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276284 Entry 62 of List II was treated as conferring State power to tax betting and gambling, and lotteries were placed within that taxing field, so the Maharashtra Tax on Lotteries Act, 2006 was upheld as within legislative competence. The levy was characterised as a tax on the lottery scheme itself, with the draw used only as the measure, so it was not an extra-territorial tax or a tax on mere ticket sales. The charging provision was found sufficiently clear when read with the Act's definition of lottery, and the enactment was not treated as a colourable exercise of power. The constitutional challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276284