9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter referred to as 'the Act') is the question that arises for determination in the present appeal(s). 2. While the primary authority found the respondent-assessee liable, the Writ Petition filed by the respondent-assessee, without availing of the statutory remedies, was answered by the learned Single Judge by requiring the respondent-assessee to exhaust the said remedies. In appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court answered the question in favour of the respondent-assessee giving rise to the present appeal(s). 3. We have heard Shri V.Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Shri Arshad Hidayatullah, learned senior counsel for the respondent-assessee. 4. Section 2(l) of the Act defines promoter in the following ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained. Eventually, on a ticket being declared as a winner in a draw, payment of prize money was made to the ticket holder as per the record of the respondent-assessee. 7. It is on the aforesaid broad facts that we are required to decide as to whether the respondent-assessee is a promoter within the meaning of Section 2(l) of the Act so as to make it exigible to payment of tax under Section 6 and amenable to the other provisions of the Act as noticed above. 8. The definition of 'promoter', extracted above, is in two parts. 'Promoter' has been defined to mean a "Government" which is engaged in organizing, conducting or promoting a lottery and includes, any person appointed by a State Government for selling lottery tickets i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 12. An argument has been advanced by Shri Giri on the basis of the provisions contained in Sections 19, 21, 23, 24 and 25 to contend that the expression 'any other person' appearing in said Sections after the words 'any promoter' would permit an expanded meaning to be given to the definition of 'promoter' under Section 2(l) of the Act. 13. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not extracted the real ratio contained therein. It then goes on to say that this is a case of short-levy which has been noticed during the lifetime of the deceased and then goes on to state that equally therefore, legal representatives of a manufacturer who had paid excess duty would not by the self-same reasoning be able to claim such excess amount paid by the deceased. Neither of these reasons are reasons which refer to any provision of law. Apart from this, the High Court went into morality and said that the moral principle of unlawful enrichment would also apply and since the law will not permit this, the Act needs to be interpreted accordingly. We wholly disapprove of the approach of the High Court. It flies in the case of first p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
