Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesClause Imposing Service Tax On Lottery Distributor Is Unconstitutional: Supreme Court Uphold...

Clause Imposing Service Tax On Lottery Distributor Is Unconstitutional: Supreme Court Uphold Sikkim High Court’s Decision 

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

In a landmark ruling today (February 11), the Supreme Court dismissed the Union Government’s appeal, affirming that lottery distributors are not liable to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court upheld the Sikkim High Court’s decision that Clause (zzzzn) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 2010, which sought to tax lottery-related activities, was unconstitutional.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh held that the relationship between lottery distributors and the State of Sikkim is a principal-to-principal relationship, not an agency arrangement. Therefore, no service is rendered, and service tax is not applicable.

This ruling solidifies that lotteries fall under “betting and gambling”, which is exclusively taxable by State Governments under Entry 62, List II of the Constitution. However, distributors will remain liable to pay State-imposed gambling taxes.

Stay tuned for further updates once the full judgment is uploaded.

Case Details

Case Title: Union Of India Versus Future Gaming Solutions P.Ltd. And Anr.Etc

Case No.: C.A. No. 004289 – 004290 / 2013 

Counsel For Petitioner: Gurmeet Singh 

Counsel For Respondent: Arjun Garg

Read More: Infrastructure Debt Fund To Be Set Up As Non-Banking Financial Company: CBDT Notifies Income-tax (Third Amendment) Rules, 2025

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Service Tax Refund on Cancelled Flat Booking Cannot Be Rejected as Time-Barred: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of  Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held...

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 24 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for September 24, 2026.GSTNO 10% GST PENALTY PRE-DEPOSIT...

Training Call Letter Is Not Appointment Order: Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Railway Protection Special Force Rakshak

The Supreme Court has held that a letter calling a selected candidate for mandatory...

Sessions Court Can’t Bar Remission for Entire Life in Murder Case: Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court has held that a Sessions Court sentencing a person for murder...

More like this

Service Tax Refund on Cancelled Flat Booking Cannot Be Rejected as Time-Barred: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of  Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held...

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 24 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for September 24, 2026.GSTNO 10% GST PENALTY PRE-DEPOSIT...

Training Call Letter Is Not Appointment Order: Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Railway Protection Special Force Rakshak

The Supreme Court has held that a letter calling a selected candidate for mandatory...