JOHN KENNEDY A Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common petitioner in all these 3 cases claims to be the authorised promoter in the State of Kerala for lottery organised by the State of Sikkim, coming within the definition of 'promoter' under Section 2(1) of the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Taxation Act', for short). THE cause of action in these cases relates to actions initiated by the 6th respondent pursuant to detention of a consignment of paper lotteries transported to the State of Kerala, in vehicle bearing No. TN-07/AD-5566.

(2.) WP (C) No. 26912/2010 was filed seeking to quash Ext. P10 & P11 notices and Ext. P13 order issued by the 6th respondent, invoking powers under Section 30(1) & (2) of the Taxation Act. Through Ext. P13 order the 6th respondent took a decision to detain and seize the goods along with the vehicle, to be produced before the 5th respondent for proceeding with further steps under Section 30(1) & (2).

(3.) AFTER conducting physical verification, Ext. P11 notice was served on the petitioner and on the driver of the vehicle. In Ext. P11 it is alleged that the petitioner has not produced certificate obtained from the Assistant Commissioner to prove payment of the Advance Tax with respect to the newly launched scheme and the details regarding the scheme was not informed to the Assistant Commissioner, enabling verification regarding correctness of the tickets transported. It is further alleged that the Advance Tax already remitted is for the old scheme which was discontinued with effect from 18/08/2010, and the said payment could not be considered as remittance for the newly introduced draws. Yet another allegation is that, on verification of the lottery tickets it was revealed that the draws will be conducted on 30/08/2010 and on 31/08/2010, which is 'Onam' and 'Ramzan' festival seasons in Kerala, and therefore the draws are to be treated as 'Bumper draws', as defined under Section 2(c) of the Taxation Act, which will attract payment of Advance Tax at the rate of Rs.17 lakhs per draw, and that remittance of such amount was not made. It is alleged that the transport was without proof regarding payment of tax and therefore liable for detention under Section 30(1). The petitioner was requested to file objections if any against the proposal for seizure of the goods and the vehicle, to be produced before the 5th respondent under Section 30(1) & (2) of the Taxation Act. The objections in this regard was requested to be filed within 3 hours and an opportunity of hearing was afforded within that time. In the copy of Ext. P11 which was served on the driver of the lorry the time for filing objection was stipulated as 24 hours.