IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5321 of 2007(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAMSON J PANADAN,S/O.P.A.LONAPPAN, PANADAN HOUSE,PARIYARAM,CHALKKUDY. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.M.RAJ MOHAN SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM SRI.K.P.PRADEEP (PAYYANNUR) SMT.P.K.MAYA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 2. COMPUTER AIDED INFORMATION & RESEARCH SERVICES PVT. LTD (CAIRS) (FORTUNE LOTTORY SERVICE), ESSAR HOUSE,11,KESHAVRAO KHADYE MARG, MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI 400 034. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 5321/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.25.1.2007 OF ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSISTANT), DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 5321 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner for some time conducted online lottery on behalf of the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, in conducting lottery there is no sale involved and, therefore, no sales tax or like amounts are due from the petitioner under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. But, by Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of ` 1 crore as licence fee for conducting lottery. The petitioner is challenging the same seeking the following reliefs; “i. To declare that the 1st and 3rd respondents have no authority to issue notice proposing to levy tax on lottery. ii. To issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 notice. iii. To declare that section 5BA of the KGST Act 1963 is unconstitutional in the light of the Apex Court's decision in Sunrise's Case.” 2. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of this Court in COMMERCIAL CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED V. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER II, KASARGODE AND OTHERS {[2007] 10 VST 175 (Ker)}. This is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader. I have gone through the said decision. I w.p.c.5321/07 2 am satisfied that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by that decision. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the said decision and Ext.P1 is quashed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge