9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e capable of being included in the definition of 'promoter'. The respondent certainly is not 'any person' appointed by the State of Karnataka to sell lottery tickets in the State of Kerala on behalf of the State of Karnataka - If the respondent is not a 'promoter' within the meaning of Section 2(l) of the Act, the charging Section i.e. Section 6 will have no application to make the respondent liable to payment of tax under the Act nor would be the respondent be liable for registration under Section 7 of the Act. In fact, the present appears to be a situation where the activities of the respondent including the terms of appointment as an agent of M/s. MSIL does not make it exigible to any of the provisions of the Act. Appeal dismissed - d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -lateral agreement or a treaty with the Government of India for organizing, conducting or promoting a lottery and includes, any person appointed for selling lottery tickets by the Government in the State of Kerala on its behalf, where such Government is not directly selling lottery tickets in the State. 5. Section 6 which is the charging section makes the promoter liable to pay tax under the Act, Section 7 requires every promoter selling lottery tickets to get himself registered under the Act and the proviso thereto makes it clear that a person ordinarily selling lottery tickets in retail is not required to be registered. Section 8 deals with returns and assessment whereas Section 9 deals with reassessment. Section 10 of the Act deals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate of Kerala. 9. The definition of 'promoter' in Section 2(l) of the Act having used the expression means and includes must be understood to be an exhaustive definition incapable of being expanded by a process of interpretation by reference to other provisions of the Act. 10. It will be necessary to note, at this stage, that the respondent, admittedly, is an agent of one M/s. Mysore Sales International Limited (M/s MSIL) who was appointed as sole selling agent of the lottery tickets by the State of Karnataka. For the present we will proceed on the basis that the aforesaid M/s. MSIL was so appointed for sale of tickets in other States including Kerala. The respondent who was appointed as an agent by M/s. MSIL was expressly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see how the definition of 'promoter', who alone is exigible under the Act, can be expanded by use of the expression 'any other person' appearing in other provisions of the Act. The said provisions of the Act relate to filing of returns and payment of penalty etc. which provisions can at best be relevant to a person who is otherwise amenable under the provisions of the Act. 14. Time and again, it has been emphasized that a taxing statute cannot be made applicable to a citizen by unnatural or unreasonable extensions thereof. A recent view of this Court in this regard is available in 'Shabina Abraham vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs' 2015 (322) E.L.T. 372(S.C.) wherein a judgment of the Bombay High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tington v. A.G. , (1869) LR 4 HL 100 at 122, Lord Cairns stated : If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible in any statute, what is called an equitable, construction, certainly, such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute where you can simply adhere to the words of the statute. 32. In Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC , (1921) 1 KB 64 at 71, Rowlatt J. laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
