9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted by the Enforcement Wing Officials, Chennai on September 8, 1986 at No. 206, Triplicane High Road, Chennai 5 and found that the said company being a dealer in the lottery tickets had not registered themselves under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. No day to day accounts were maintained. No stock books have been maintained for the lottery tickets available. No purchase bills have been produced for the goods worth Rs. 49,541 available at the time of inspection. On the basis of the inspection report, the assessing officer seems to have been framed assessment for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, as seen from the letter of the second respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, Ice House Assessment Circle dated May 8, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s v. Government of NCT of Delhi reported in [2006] 3 VST 151; [2006] 145 STC 576; [2006] 5 JT 168 (SC) overruled prospectively, the earlier judgment of H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in [1986] 61 STC 165 (SC) which held that the lottery tickets were goods and liable to be taxed by holding that two distinct rights were transferred to the purchaser of lottery ticket, i.e., right to participate in the draw and chance to win. It was held that tax could be levied on the right to participate in the draw which was held to be the goods but not on the chance to win which was held to be actionable claim. The decision of the Supreme Court being declaration of the true and correct position of law became applicable to all the transacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive overruling, is candidly explained by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2001] 123 STC 623. In the said case in paragraph 41, the Supreme Court observed as follows: . . . It is declared that the vend fee realised by the States is not to be refunded to the appellants and, at the same time, the State cannot collect any vend fee for the period prior to October 25, 1989 or thereafter notwithstanding that notices of demand may have been issued or recovery proceedings initiated . . . The judgment further explains the position as follows (page 644 of STC): . . . by prospective overruling, the court does not grant the relief claimed even after holding in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
