IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, T.V.ANILKUMAR, JJ.
State of Sikkim, Represented By Director Of Lotteries and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
WA.No.648 OF 2008(E)
Decided On : 30-04-2020
Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act- The Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 is hereby declared as unconstitutional and invalid- The appellants will be at liberty to make claim for refund of the tax already collected by the State of Kerala from the appellants under the said Act, on producing proper accounts and proof- The price of the lottery tickets cannot be changed on the basis of any tax charged in any of the states in which the tickets are sold-The liability has not been passed on to the customer of the lotteries-The State of Sikkim cannot be said to be gaining any unwanted or unmerited monetary benefit, if the refund if effected- When the money in question belongs to a State and the dispute is in between two States, the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' cannot be applied.
Statement of facts:
The petitioners in the writ petition, W.P (C) No.12189/2007, are the appellants herein, challenging judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The 1st appellant is the State of Sikkim and the 2nd appellant is the Distributor of the paper lotteries organized by the 1st appellant in the State of Kerala. Constitutional validity of the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 is under challenge in the writ petition. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition, the State of Kerala and its officials.
Finding of the court:
The Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 is hereby declared as unconstitutional and invalid. The refund cannot be denied by applying the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment'. But at the same time, it is for the appellants to produce materials regarding the person who had borne the real loss or who had ultimately borne the burden of payment of the tax, which is already collected invalidly. Proof regarding quantity of the tax collected is also not available. Therefore we hold that the appellants will be entitled for refund of the tax paid from the State Government, on their producing proper accounts and proof as to who had ultimately borne the burden. Such proof being produced, the State of Kerala is held liable for making refund.
Result: Writ appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
Abdul Rehim, J:
The petitioners in the writ petition, W.P © No.12189/2007, are the appellants herein, challenging judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The 1st appellant is the State of Sikkim and the 2nd appellant is the Distributor of the paper lotteries organized by the 1st appellant in the State of Kerala. Constitutional validity of the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short) is under challenge in the writ petition. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition, the State of Kerala and its officials.
2. Brief history of the impugned legislation may be worthfull to mention. By virtue of the Finance Act, 2001, introduced with effect from 23-07-2001, the State of Kerala has introduced Section 5BA to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('KGST Act' for short) imposing licence fee on the draw of lotteries, in lieu of tax payable under Section 5 (1) of the KGST Act. Validity of Section 5BA was under challenge before this court. In the decision in Commercial Corporation of India Ltd. V. Additional Sales Tax Officer and others (2007 (2) KLT 397) = (2007 (2) KHC 427) this court held that Section 5BA of the KGST Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional. Eventhough the State of Kerala filed appeal before the Division Bench, it was dismissed by relying on the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunrise Associates V. Govt. of NCT of New Delhi and others (AIR 2006 SC 1908), in which earlier ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Anraj V. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1986 SC 63) was reversed and it was held that no tax can be levied, collected or demanded in connection with sale of lottery tickets. A Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Kerala against the Division Bench decision was also dismissed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in State of Kerala V. Prabhavathy Thankamma and others ((2009) 3 SCC 511).
3. In the year 2005, the impugned legislation was enacted, with effect from 08-04-2005, in the wake of replacement of the KGST Act by the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). In the KVAT Act there is no imposition of any tax on lotteries. In the preamble of the impugned Act the reasons for introducing the legislation is stated as; “Whereas it is expedient to provide for the levy and collection of tax on the conduct of paper lotteries in the State of Kerala.”. In the 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' it is mentioned that; “The Government have decided to levy and collect tax on paper lotteries sold in the State of Kerala and to bring a separate legislation for the purpose.”
4. It may be beneficial to extract relevant provisions of the impugned Act. Section 6 of the Act is the 'charging section'. Section 7 deals with registration of 'Promoters'. Section 8 deals with 'returns and assessment'. Section 10 deals with 'payment of tax in advance'. Section 6 to 10 of the Act are reproduced hereunder;
“6. Levy of Tax.—
(1) There shall be levied and collected a tax on paper lotteries at the following rates, namely:-
(a) Ten lakh rupees for every bumper draw and
(b) Two lakh fifty thousand rupees in respect of any other draw;
(2) Tax levied under sub-section (1) shall be paid by each promoter.
(3) Where the Government of India or a Government of a State or Union Territory or a Country appoints more than one promoters in the State, one such promoter duly authorized by the respective Government or Country shall pay tax levied under sub section (1);
7. Registration of Promoters.-(1) Every promoter selling lottery tickets shall get himself registered under this Act in such manner and on payment of such fees and security within such period as may be prescribed:
Provided that a person ordinarily selling lottery tickets in retail shall not be liable to get himself registered.
(2)The registration may be renewed from year to year on payment of the prescribed fees and security, until it is cancelled;
(3)Unless the registration is cancelled or renewed at the exp
All Kerala Online Lottery Dealers Association V. State of Kerala
CIT V. OVR SR Arunachalam Chettiar
Commercial Corporation of India Ltd. V. Additional Sales Tax Officer and others
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai V. Dilip Kumar and Company and others
Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala V. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.
Deshbandhu Gupta & Co. V. Delhi Stock Exchange Association
Devilal Modi V. The Sales Tax Officer
Dunlop India Ltd. V. Union of India
Godfrey Philips India Ltd. And another V. State of Uttarpradesh and others
H. Anraj and others V. State of Maharashtra
H. Anraj V. Govt. of Tamil Nadu
Hoechst Pharamaceuticals Ltd. V. State of Bihar
Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Anr v State of Haryana
Kesavananda Bharati Versus State of Kerala
M/s. B.R. Enterprises V. State of Uttar Pradesh
Madhuram Agarwal V. State of Madhyapradesh
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And others V. Union of India and others
Municipal Corporation of City of Pune V. Vidyut Metalitcs Ltd. & others
National & Grindlays Bank Ltd. V. Municipal Corporation
Somaiya Organics India Ltd. V. State of U.P.
Sree Mangalmoorthy Marketing V. State of Maharashtra
State legislature.In J.K. Bharati V. State of Maharashtra and others
State of Bombay v. RMD Chamarbaugwalla
State of Haryana V. Suman Enterprises and others
State of Kerala V. Prabhavathy Thankamma and others
State of West Bengal V. Kesoram Industries Ltd.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.