(2009] 1 S.C.R. 723
ST ATE OF KERALA & ORS.
v.
MINI SHAMSUDIN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 594 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 2, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGUL Y, JJ.]
KERALA GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1963:
ss. 2(xii) and 17(3) -'Goods' - 'Actionable claim' - Sale
of lottery tickets - HELD: Right of a purchaser of lottery ticket
would fall within the definition of 'actionable claim' and would,
therefore, be excluded from the definition of 'goods' under the
Sale of Goods Act and the sales tax statutes.
Sunrise Associates vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
2006 (1 ) Suppl. SCR 421 =2006 (5) SCC 603, relied on.
Case Law Reference:
2006 (1 ) Suppl. SCR 421 relied on
para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 594
of 2009.
A
B
c
D
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.2007 of the High
F
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2007.
R. Sathish for the Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
ORDER
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
723
G
H
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009) 1 S.C.R.
A
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this
Court in Sunrise Associates vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors
8 reported in 2006(5) sec 603, we find no merit in this appeal
which is accordingly dismissed. It need to be stated that this
Court in the said case inter alia held as follows:
c
D
E
"We have noted earlier that all the statutory
definitions of the word 'goods' in the State Sales Tax Laws
have uniformly excluded, inter alia, actionable claims from
the definition for the purpose of the Act. Were actionable
claims etc., not otherwise includes in the definitions of
'goods' there was no need for excluding them. In other
words, actionable claims are 'goods' but not for the
purpose of the Sales Tax Acts and but for this statutory
exclusion, an actionable claim would be 'goods' for the
subject matter of ownership. Consequently, an actionable
claim is movable property and 'goods' in the wider sense
of the term but a sale of an actionable claim would not be
subject to the sales tax law.
XXXJOO(
XXXJOO(
)()()()()()(
F
A lottery ticket has no value in itself. It is a mere piece of
paper. Its value lies in the fact that it represents a chance
or a right to a conditional benefit of winning a prize of a
greater value than the consideration paid for the transfer
of that chance. It is nothing more than a taken or evidence
G
of this right. The Court in H. Anraj, as we have seen, held
that a lottery ticket is a slip of paper of memoranda
evidencing the transfer of certain rights. We agree.
)()()()()()(
XXXJOO(
)()()()()()(
H
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. MINI SHAMSUDIN &
725
ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
The question is, what is this right which the ticket
A
represents? There can be no doubt that on purchasing a lottery
ticket, the purchaser would have a claim to a conditional
interest in the prize money which is not in the purchaser's
possession. The right would fail squarely within the definition
of an actionable claim and would therefore be excluded from
B
the definition of 'goods' under the Sale of Goods Act and the
Sales tax statutes."
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.
c
Lex