2017 (11) TMI 1406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Pradesh and others. They are undertaking entire process of operating the lottery business which includes promotion, marketing and all auxiliary and incidental support services like selling, billing, collection, remitting, evaluation of prospective customers etc. The dispute in the present appeals relate to service tax liability of the appellant under the category of Business Auxiliary Service in terms of Section 65 (105) (zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant to demand and recover service tax with the period 16/11/2004 to 31/03/2010 by issuing two show cause notices dated 20/10/2009 and 20/07/2010. The case was adjudicated resulting in the impugned order. The Original Authority held that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty on cum tax value ; and (f) no penalty is leviable on the appellant in view of the interpretation of legal position involved in the present dispute. 3. The learned AR contested the appeal and reiterated the findings of the Original Authority. He further submitted that similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of P. Muraleedharan Vs. Union of India - 2012 (28) S.T.R. 344 (Ker.), the Hon'ble High Court held that the distributors of lottery tickets are liable to service tax under BAS. Further, the learned AR also submitted that without the services of the appellant, the State Governments cannot carry out the activity of lottery business. The appellants were given a range of responsibility starting fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are having power to organize or promote lotteries. No private person is allowed to do the same. The State Governments in terms of agreement with the appellant permitted the appellants to organize, promote and market the said lotteries of the State Government. Admittedly the lottery service is that of State Government. The appellants is undertaking the said work covering various activities starting from designing, organizing, promoting and marketing the said lotteries. The intention is to have maximum income both for the State Governments as well as to the appellant. 7. The fact that appellants are engaged in promotion and marketing of lottery of the State Governments cannot be disputed. Services in relation to promotion or marketing of a....