AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 965
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he lottery draw, and (ii) the right to win the prize, depending on chance. The court further held that while the second right was a chose-in-action and not "goods" for the purpose of levy of sales tax, the first was a transfer of a beneficial interest in movable goods and was a sale within the meaning of article 366(29A)(a) of the Constitution so to be amenable to the levy of sales tax. The correctness of the said view was examined by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunrise Associates v. Government of NCT of Delhi [2006] 3 VST 151 (SC); [2006] 145 STC 576 (SC); AIR 2006 SC 1908. Their Lordships on a comprehensive review of the case law on the subject came to the conclusion that a lottery has no value in itself. It was a mere pi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 VST): "43. A lottery ticket has no value in itself. It is a mere piece of paper. Its value lies in the fact that it represents a chance or a right to a conditional benefit of winning a prize of a greater value than the consideration paid for the transfer of that chance. It is nothing more than a token or evidence of this right. The court in H. Anraj [1986] 61 STC 165 (SC); AIR 1986 SC 63, as we have seen, held that a lottery ticket is a slip of paper or memoranda evidencing the transfer of certain rights. We agree. . . . 47.. The further distinction sought to be drawn in H. Anraj [1986] 61 STC 165 (SC); AIR 1986 SC 63 between the chance to win and the right to participate in the draw was in our opinion unwarranted. A lottery ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n actionable claim. The decision to the extent that it held otherwise is accordingly overruled though prospectively with effect from the date of this judgment." Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the above case, the petitioners in this bunch of cases have called in question the constitutional validity of section 45(1) and Schedule G of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, "the VAT Act") to the extent the same authorises levy of tax at 20 per cent of the face value of the lottery ticket where the face value of the lottery ticket is more than Rs. 7. In all these cases, the petitioners have also assailed the validity of the order of assessment made by the Assessing Authority concerned and those passed in appeal by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with Schedule G to the VAT Act, and thereby committed a mistake apparent on the face of the record rendering the assessment unsustainable. It was submitted that if the law declared in the case of H. Anraj [1986] 61 STC 165 (SC); AIR 1986 SC 63 was to be applied in the present cases, the Assessing Authority shall have to necessarily assess the sale in question by suitably splitting the value of the lottery ticket into what was taxable and what was not. This exercise had not been undertaken by the Assessing Authority obviously because the assessment order proceeded on the basis of the provisions contained in Schedule G of VAT Act which gave a totally different touchstone for such assessment. It was urged that while the present bunch of cases....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ril, 2006 when the decision in Sunrise Associates' case [2006] 3 VST 151 (SC); [2006] 145 STC 576 (SC); AIR 2006 SC 1908 was delivered. In so far as the earlier period was concerned, the law as declared by the Supreme Court in H. Anraj's case [1986] 61 STC 165; AIR 1986 SC 63 still held the field as their Lordships of the Supreme Court have specifically directed that the decision in H. Anraj's case [1986] 61 STC 165; AIR 1986 SC 63 would stand overruled only prospectively. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, implies that the law as declared in H. Anraj's case [1986] 61 STC 165; AIR 1986 SC 63 was the law of the land during the period with which we are concerned in these petitions. Consequently, a par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeping in view the fact that the said decision has been held to be operative only prospectively, the law as declared by the Supreme Court in H. Anraj's case [1986] 61 STC 165; AIR 1986 SC 63 would continue to hold the field. That being so, the assessment orders will have to be so tailored as to comply with the ratio of the decision in H. Anraj's case [1986] 61 STC 165 (SC); AIR 1986 SC 63. That is precisely what appears to have been done in Nirmal Agency's case [1992] 86 STC 450, in which the High Court of Karnataka has, keeping in view the law declared in the decision of the Supreme Court in H. Anraj's case [1986] 61 STC 165; AIR 1986 SC 63, directed the matter to be re-examined by the Assessing Authority to determine how m....