New Delhi (PTI): Lottery distributors are not liable to pay service tax to the Union government, the Supreme Court held on Tuesday while dismissing an appeal of the Centre on the issue.

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh did not agree to the appeal of the Centre against the Sikkim High Court judgement.

“Since there is no agency in the relationship, the respondents (lottery distributors) were not liable to pay service tax. However, the respondents will continue to pay the gambling tax levied by the state under Entry 62, List II of the Constitution,” Justice Nagarathna said while pronouncing the verdict.

"Service tax is not leviable on the transactions between the purchaser of the lottery tickets and firm…In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in the appeals filed by the Union of India and others. Hence, these appeals are dismissed," the bench said.

Upholding the Sikkim High Court verdict, the top court said it is only the state government that can impose taxes on lotteries and not the Centre.

The Centre had contended that it was entitled to impose service tax.

The top court said the high court was right in holding that the lottery comes within the expression "betting and gambling" which is part of Entry 62 of the state list of the Constitution and only the state can impose the tax.

The Centre had moved the top court in 2013. The high court judgement had come on a plea filed by lottery firm Future Gaming Solutions Pvt Ltd.

 

Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.



Chennai: Journalist and political commentator Sujit Nair has expressed concern over speculation that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam could explore a post-poll understanding to prevent Vijay-led Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam from forming the government in Tamil Nadu.

In a social media post, Sujit Nair said the election verdict in Tamil Nadu reflected a clear public demand for political change and argued that the mandate should be respected irrespective of political preferences.

Referring to reports and political discussions surrounding a possible understanding between the DMK and AIADMK, he said he hoped such developments remained only speculative conversations and did not turn into reality.

Nair stated that if such an alliance were to take shape, it would raise serious questions about ideological politics in the country. He said TVK had emerged through a democratic electoral process and that the legitimacy to govern in a parliamentary democracy comes from the people’s verdict.

According to him, attempts to prevent an electoral winner from forming the government through unexpected political arrangements may be constitutionally valid, but many people could view them as politically opportunistic.

He further said that such a move could particularly affect the political image of the DMK, which has historically projected itself around ideology, social justice and opposition politics. Nair said that in ideological terms, the DMK appeared closer to TVK than to the AIADMK, and joining hands with its long-time political rival only to remain in power could weaken its broader political narrative.

He added that the same questions would apply to the AIADMK as well, as the party had spent decades positioning itself against the DMK and such an arrangement could create discomfort among its cadre and supporters.

Drawing a comparison with Maharashtra politics in 2019, Nair said he had expressed similar views when the Shiv Sena formed an alliance with the Indian National Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party after the Assembly elections.

He said post-poll alliances between long-standing political rivals often create a public perception that ideology and electoral mandates become secondary when political power equations come into play.

Nair also said such developments increase public cynicism towards politics and reinforce the belief among voters that ideology is often sidelined after elections.

He maintained that the Tamil Nadu verdict was emphatic and said respecting both the spirit and substance of the mandate was important for the credibility of democratic politics.