SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 66

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Venkateswara Lottery Agency – Appellant
Versus
Cochin-cce – Respondent
ST/21368/2016



CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 Service Tax Appeal No. 21367 of 2016 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CAL-EXCUS-000-APP-105-16-17 dated 14.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Cochin.)

Sree Ganesh Lottery Agency Appellant(s)

Panchayat Building, Kozhinjampara, Palakkad – 678 555.

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Respondent(s)

C.R. Building, I S Press Road, Ernakulam, Cochin, Kerala – 682 018.

With Service Tax Appeal No. 21368 of 2016 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CAL-EXCUS-000-APP-107-16-17 dated 14.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Cochin.)

Venkateswara Lottery Agency D.No.8/14, T.K. Thara, Koduvayur Po, Appellant(s)

Palakkad, Kerala – 678 501.

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, C.R. Building, I S Press Road, Ernakulam, Respondent(s)

Cochin, Kerala – 682 018.

And Service Tax Appeal No. 21372 of 2016 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CAL-EXCUS-000-APP-104-16-17 dated 14.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Cochin.)

P A Rajesh Agency House No.8/14, T.K. Thara, Koduvayur Appellant(s) PO, Palakkad, Kerala – 678 501.

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Respondent(s)

C.R. Building, I S Press Road, Ernakulam, Cochin, Kerala – 682 018.

APPEARANCE:

None for the Appellant Mr. M.A. Jithendra, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MRS R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Final Order No. 20101-20103 /2026 DATE OF HEARING: 08.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 08.01.2026 PER : DR. D.M. MISRA These three appeals are filed against respective Orders-in-

Appeal, since involve common issues, are taken up together for hearing and disposal.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case common to all these appeals are that the appellant are engaged in providing service in relation to promotion or marketing of services i.e. marketing and distribution of various state lotteries. Alleging that the service rendered by the appellant i.e. marketing and distribution of lottery tickets fall under scope of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’, show-cause notice was issued to each of the appellant for recovery of the service tax not paid along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demands were confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn rejected their appeals. Hence, the present appeals.

3. The learned Authorised Representative for the appellants through written submission has submitted that the appellant are engaged in purchase and resale of lottery tickets. They sell these tickets on their own right to any purchaser who approaches at a price determined independently at their discretion. The difference between purchase price and resale price represents trade margin and it is not a commission or agency charges. Therefore, they do not provide ‘Business Auxiliary Service’; hence the demands confirmed under the said category are not sustainable. Further, he has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others V. Future Gaming Solutions Pvt.

Ltd. & Another Etc. [2025 (2) TMI 483 - Supreme Court].

4. The Learned AR for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records.

6. The short issue involved in the present appeals for consideration is, whether service tax is leviable on sale, marketing and distribution of lottery tickets. We find that the issue is no longer res integra covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others V. Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Another Etc. (Supra). Their Lordships held as follows:

“18. The parliamentary amendments ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top