TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent fairly concedes that respondents would not claim any refund of the tax, already paid but they would not be liable to pay any further tax. Appeal is dismissed. Neither the State will be liable to refund the tax, already collected nor collect any further tax for the period prior to the date of the judgment. - Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2006 - ASHOK BHAN AND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the both houses of the Legislature as mandated by the Act. The tax was imposed by the State based on a judgment of this court in the case of H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu [1986] 1 SCC 414, in which it has been held that lottery tickets were goods and, therefore, sales tax could be levied. A further distinction was made that not one but two distinct rights were transferred to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the draw was unwarranted. That there was no sale of "goods" within the meaning of Sales Tax Acts of the different States but at the highest, a transfer of an actionable claim. That lottery tickets are not "goods" and as per the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, tax is to be levied on the sale of "goods" only. Explaining the principle of prospective overruling, a Constitution Bench of this co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment, by prospective overruling the court does not grant the relief claimed even after holding in the claimant's favour. In this case, the court held that the statutory provision imposing vend fee was invalid. Strictly speaking, this would have entitled the appellant to a refund from the respondents of all amounts collected by way of vend fee. But because, as stated in the Synthetics decision [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
