9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t: - had the case been a case of provision of lottery service after 16.5.2008 because from that date, any service provided in relation to promotion or marketing of lottery tickets etc. has been made taxable. But that is not the case in the present appeal. This appeal relates to prior period - reliance placed in the case of Union of India Vs. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. [2009 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Finance Act, 1994. He says that such a contention can be appreciated only after 16.5.2008 but not prior to that. The Explanation added to section 65(19) with effect from 16.5.2008 having been held to be declaratory in nature fastening the liability that shall be read as prospective in nature without being retrospective as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted online, including lottery, lotto, bingo . xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 14. The core question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the Explanation appended to sub-clause (ii) of section 65(19) is clarificatory or declaratory in nature so as to be construed having retrospective effect and retroactive operation. Sub-clause (i) of clause (19) of section 65 of the Act refers to go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. Accordingly, the Court in para 50 and 51 of the judgment held that service tax is to be payable with effect from May 2008 but not prior to that. For convenience of reading, those two paragraphs are extracted hereunder:- 50. It is, therefore, evident that by reason of an explanation, a substantive law may also be introduced. If a substantive law is introduced, it will have no retrospective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er like issuing invoice, settling the accounts and collecting the money etc, as is apparent from para 14 thereof. Therefore, the alleged activity brings the appellant to the fold of business auxiliary service. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. We would have agreed with learned AR had the case been a case of provision of lottery service after 16.5.2008 because from that date, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
