Skip to main content

Tax on Lottery in India

 TAX ON LOTTERY INDIA 



INTRODUCTION


In an exemplifying case , the Supreme Court in a judgement held that a state legislature has the right to impose tax on lotteries conducted by other States within its jurisdiction.

Earlier  before this significant judgement  , the Karnataka High Court delivered a judgement striking down major portions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 which banned online gambling and skill-based gaming platforms.

In 2020, the Supreme Court held that lottery, gambling and betting are taxable under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017.

Separate appeals were brought by the governments of Karnataka and Kerala, which had adopted separate rules for taxation lotteries run by other states and private organisations. The verdict came in response to petitions filed by the governments of Karnataka and Kerala against High Court decisions to nullify statutes adopted by their legislatures to tax lotteries organised and promoted by the states of Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, and Manipur in Kerala and Karnataka.


The tax legislation imposed by the two states, however, were deemed unlawful and unconstitutional by the High Courts, who even ordered Kerala and Karnataka to restore the money collected as tax from lotteries to the north-eastern states.


HIGH COURT  RULING OF KARNATKA AND KERELA HIGH COURT 

The Karnataka Tax on Lotteries Act of 2004 and the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act of 2005 were both challenged for their legality. The Karnataka High Court, in separate rulings issued in December 2010 and March 2011, found that the Karnataka legislature lacked legislative competence to approve the aforementioned law and ordered the states that organised the lottery schemes to reimburse the money they had put up. Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, and Sikkim were among these states.


Similarly, the Kerala high court declared the 2005 Act, 2005 to be illegal and unlawful in separate rulings issued in April 2020 and August 2021.



SUPREME COURT RULING 

 The Supreme Court, on the other hand, stated that "lotteries" are a "kind of gambling activity." The State List in the Constitution's Seventh Schedule includes 'betting and gaming.' All activities that are in the nature of 'betting and gambling,' including lotteries, are subject to taxation. The court stated that there is no dispute that lotteries are 'betting and gambling,' regardless of whether they are conducted or organised by the Government of India or the Government of a State, or whether they are authorised by the State or conducted by an agency or instrumentality of the State government or the Central government or any private player. The Court further noted that there is no particular entry in List I (Union List) for the imposition of a tax on betting and gaming, as it is only provided in the State List. "As a result, Entry 62 of List II grants a state assembly legislative authority to charge a tax on betting and gambling." At the same time, the court stressed that Entry 40 of List I is solely intended to regulate lotteries and that it cannot be broadened to include the competence of the Parliament to charge taxes on lotteries.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree