Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.34 seconds)The Maharashtra Tax on Lotteries Act, 2006
Section 4 in The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 [Entire Act]
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Sunrise Associates vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 28 April, 2006
In the wake of the said decision, the State of
Maharashtra enacted Act No.53 of 2006 to provide for levy and
collection of tax on the lotteries and the matter connected
therewith or incidental thereto. The said enactment was
brought in force to provide for levy and collection of tax on
lotteries of the State as well as lotteries of other States,
conducted as per provisions of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act
1991 and which was marketed in the State of Maharashtra.
State Of West Bengal vs Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors on 15 January, 2004
3 1984 AIR 781
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 02:07:54 :::
12/45 wp-854-07.doc
7 The learned senior counsel makes an attempt to
canvass before us that the judgment of the constitution bench
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram
Industries Limited & ors4 and specifically paragraph nos.75
and 76 does not apply to the present case. According to Shri
Raman, the point involved here is not whether regulatory
power and taxation powers are the same, but the issue is
whether the expression "betting and gambling" consciously
applied by the framers of the Constitution in Entry 34 and
Entry 62 of List II are to be assigned the same meaning or it is
intended or meant to convey different meaning and having
different scope and ambit. According to him, since the
Division Bench of this Court had wrongly approached the said
question, it had erroneously answered it in para 10 to the
following effect
"..... It is clear from the above quoted observations that
if the power to tax in relation to a subject is clearly
mentioned in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution, the same would not be available to be
exercised by the Parliament based on the assumption
4 2004 (10) SCC 201
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 02:07:54 :::
13/45 wp-854-07.doc
of residuary power. Entry 62 of List II of the Seventh
Schedule specifically empowers the State legislature to
impose tax in relation to the lotteries because
admittedly the lotteries are included within the ambit
of the meaning of the term "betting". It cannot be said
that the Parliament gets legislative competence to
impose tax in relation to the lotteries because of the
residuary Entry 97 in List I of the Seventh Schedule.
Entry 34 of List II of the Seventh Schedule confers
legislative competence on the State legislature to
legislate regulating betting and gambling....."
8 The precise submission of the learned senior
counsel is that the High Court is reading Entry 62 of List II as
under :-
H. Anraj And Others Etc vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 January, 1984
16 The Division Bench of this Court dealt with all the
issues elaborately. Dealing with the competency of the State
legislature to enact the said legislation, the Hon'ble Division
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 02:07:55 :::
37/45 wp-854-07.doc
Bench decided the arguments advanced by the parties assailing
the said legislation which was to the effect that the subject
lotteries organized by Government of India or Government of
State, falls within Entry 40 of List I in the Seventh Schedule and
it was only the Parliament which was empowered to enact the
law relating to lotteries either by the Government of India or
the Government of a State or any law relating to such tax on
the lotteries. Reliance was placed before the Division Bench
on the judgment in the case of H. Anraj vs. State of
Maharashtra (supra) and H. Anraj Vs State of Tamil Nadu
(supra), and the submission that the lotteries organized by the
State are necessarily excluded from betting and gambling and
covered by Entry 62 of List II of Seventh Schedule.
B.R. Enterprises Etc, Etc vs State Of U.P. And Grs. Etc: Etc on 7 May, 1999
The petition assails the legislative competence of
the State Legislature to enact the impugned legislation. It is
attempted to canvass before us by the learned senior counsel
that lottery is the subject included in the union list and the
power to legislate in respect of lotteries is exclusively rests with
the Parliament. In exercise of its power, the Parliament has
already enacted the Lottery Regulation Act, 1998 to regularize
the conduct of lottery business in respect of the State Organized
lotteries and with a view to offer security to the purchaser of
lottery tickets. Our attention is invited to Section 5 of the said
Act which empowers the State Government to prohibit sale of
lotteries of other States within its territory and Section 6 which
empowers the Union Government to take measures against any
lottery which violates the provisions of Lottery Regulation Act.
It is also pointed out that the vires of the said enactment has
already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
B.R. Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra). The
petitioner does not dispute that State can prohibit sale of
lottery tickets in that State where the State itself does not run
any lottery and it does not allow sale of lottery tickets of any
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 02:07:54 :::
7/45 wp-854-07.doc
other State.