9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osecuted by Department of Commercial Tax for evasion of sales tax on lottery tickets. The petitioner is proprietor of M/s. Vijay Agency. The case has been registered on the basis of fard-bevan lodged by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Investigation Bureau. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised several points against the prosecution of the petitioner under sales tax provisions including limitation, jurisdiction of police to investigate and non-assessability of sales tax on lottery tickets. It is submitted that now Constitution Bench of the honourable Supreme Court decision reported in Sunrise Associates v. Government of NCT of Delhi [2006] 3 VST 151; [2006] 145 STC 576; [2006] 5 SCC 603, has finally settled that the lottery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim. Significantly in B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. [2000] 120 STC 302 (SC); [1999] 9 SCC 700 construing H. Anraj [1986] 61 STC 165 (SC); [1986] 1 SCC 414 the court said:" In paragraph 51 of the judgment, it has further been held as follows: (para 52 of STC): "52. We are, therefore, of the view that the decision in H. Anraj [1986] 61 STC 165 (SC); [1986] 1 SCC 414 incorrectly held that a sale of a lottery ticket involved a sale of goods. There was no sale of goods within the meaning of the Sales Tax Acts of the different States but at the highest a transfer of an actionable claim. The decision to the extent that it held otherwise is accordingly overruled though prospectively with effect from the date of this judgment. " Thus from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f there is special provision of investigation and prosecution provided in any special Act, it excludes the application of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, as per sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The second case is the Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1997] 1 All PLR 56.. In this case also it has been held that in the Drugs and Cosmetic Act offences, if the prosecution can be instituted by filing complaint by the Drug Inspector, registering of a case in the F.I.R. and investigation by police is without jurisdiction and, therefore, such proceeding is fit to be quashed. The learned counsel further contended that in earlier case. Bindeshwari Prasad Chaudhary v. Collector, Sitamarhi [1979] BLJ 391, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
