SUNRISE ASSOCIATES Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
LAWS(SC)-2006-4-21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on April 28,2006

SUNRISE ASSOCIATES Appellant
VERSUS
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

THE STATE OF MADRAS V. GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
B.R. ENTERPRISES V. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SUNRISE ASSOCIATES V. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SESHA AYYAR V. KRISHNA AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OFBIHAR VS. KAMESHWAR SINGH:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH:GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:KAMESHWAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT NIDHI LIMITED VS. TAKHATMAL DEAD [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SARADA MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BALBIR SINGH DELHI ADMINISTRATION DELHI VS. D N KADIAN M M DELHI:D N KADIAN [OVERRULED]
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICE VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STATE LOTTERIES VS. GOVT OF NCT OF NELHI [REFERRED TO]
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE VS. LCHIPPENDALE [REFERRED TO]
BHUPATI MOHAN DAS VS. PHANINDRA CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL AGENCY VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, XIV CIRCLE, BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SHAMADHAN TRADING P LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
COMMERCIAL CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD VS. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER II [LAWS(KER)-2007-3-667] [REFERRED TO]
LIS REGISTERED PALAKKAL COURT VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-3-249] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYA LOTTERIES VS. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2006-8-276] [REFERRED TO]
P MURALEEDHARAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2011-8-129] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. TVL M R S LUCKY CENTRE [LAWS(MAD)-2007-9-285] [REFERRED TO]
N V MARKETING PVT LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-106] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN TRADERS AND SUPPLIERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2011-1-121] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN ROSE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-1-696] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. FUTURE GAMING SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SIK)-2013-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
N. JAYAMURUGAN VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2006-8-323] [REFERRED TO]
INTER GOLD (INDIA) LIMITED AND ANR. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2009-9-253] [REFERRED TO]
KENLOTT GAMING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2009-3-217] [REFERRED TO]
SODEXO SVC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-84] [REFERRED TO]
DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U P [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
YASHA OVERSEAS VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [LAWS(SC)-2008-5-203] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. PRABHAVATHY THANKAMMA [LAWS(SC)-2009-1-152] [REFERRED TO]
FUTURE GAMING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SIK)-2012-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MIZORAM VS. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2014-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANR. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, SALT LAKE CHARGE AND ORS. [LAWS(ST)-2010-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. S.H. KELKAR & COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2014-11-102] [REFERRED TO]
SRI PADMAVATHI VENKATARAMANA TRADERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(ST)-2008-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
BEST AND CO. VS. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [LAWS(CE)-2009-3-208] [REFERRED TO]
KIRANBEN BIPINKUMAR TANNA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR [LAWS(GJH)-2010-12-335] [REFERRED TO]
AANEX SERVICES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH [LAWS(CE)-2012-5-157] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. S S AGGARWAL [LAWS(SC)-2011-8-54] [REFERRED TO]
GEETHA R G VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2011-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
VITAN DEPARTMENTAL STORES & INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2013-10-69] [REFERRED TO]
FUTURE GAMING & HOTEL SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SIK)-2015-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMERCIAL CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER-II AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2007-3-752] [REFERRED TO]
SHA KANTILAL JAYANTILAL VS. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS. VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
MAHYCO MONSANTO BIOTECH (INDIA) PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-209] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII VS. SVP BUILDERS (INDIA) LIMITED; S V LIQUOR INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-623] [REFERRED]
MC DONALDS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES, NEW DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-208] [REFERRED TO]
M/S FUTURE GAMING & HOTEL SERVICES (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY [LAWS(SIK)-2017-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
M/S G.D. GOENKA (P) LTD VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-178] [REFERRED TO]
TRIPTI ALCOBREW PVT LTD VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-54] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
PVR LTD , (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPI CINEMAS PVT LTD ) VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2020-10-56] [REFERRED TO]
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-73] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ruma Pal, J. - (1.)By an order dated 13th October, 1999 in Sunrise Associates vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others (2000) 1 SCC 420, the decisions of this Court in H. Anraj vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (1986) 1 SCC 414 as well as Vikas Sales Tax Corporation and Anr. vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Anr. (1996) 4 SCC 433 (in so far as it affirmed the decision in the H. Anraj) have been referred to this Bench for reconsideration.
(2.)The question in H. Anraj was whether sales tax can be levied by States on the sale of lottery tickets. A Bench of two Judges held that a lottery involved (i) the right to participate in the lottery draw, and (ii) the right to win the prize, depending on chance. The learned Judges were of the opinion that while the second right was a chose in action and therefore not goods for the purposes of the levy of Sales Tax, the first was a transfer of a beneficial interest in movable goods and was a sale within the meaning of Article 366 (29-A)(a) of the Constitution and consequently subject to sales tax.
(3.)The immediate cause for the present reference was a decision of the High Court of Delhi dated 17th July, 1998 in Haryana State Lotteries vs. Govt. of NCT 1998 (46) DRJ 397 disposing of a series of writ petitions which construed H. Anraj and held that lottery tickets were goods and are liable to sales tax under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. Several of the writ petitioners before the Delhi High Court have challenged the decision of the Delhi High Court before this Court. In the appeal preferred by Sunrise Associates, the order of reference was made on the prima facie view that there was no good reason to split a lottery into two separate rights and, therefore, the judgment in H. Anraj required reconsideration. Since in the case of Vikas Sales Corporation vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (supra), a bench of three-Judges had agreed with the decision of H. Anraj, it was necessary that the appeal should be heard by a Constitution Bench.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.