LawLoveLegal

Delhi Court Declines Cognizance in Case Against AAP Leader Somnath Bharti Introduction In a significant ruling, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has declined to take cognizance of the charge sheet filed against AAP leader Somnath Bharti and another accused under Section 132 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act). The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to establish a criminal offense, thereby dismissing the prosecution’s case. This decision comes after an FIR was registered at the South Campus Police Station in May 2024, alleging that Bharti and his associates entered polling locations and recorded poll procedures during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections . Background of the Case FIR & Allegations 🔹 The FIR was lodged based on two complaints from Presiding Officers of Polling Stations-12 & 14 , who alleged that: ✔️ Somnath Bharti and his supporters entered the polling locations while hiding their mobile phones. ✔️ An accused, Anshul , vid...

SC Rules: Only States Can Tax Lotteries – No Service Tax by Centre Introduction In a significant verdict , the Supreme Court of India ruled that lottery distributors are not liable to pay service tax to the Central Government . The apex court upheld the Sikkim High Court's 2012 decision , stating that only state governments have the power to impose taxes on lotteries under Entry 62, List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. This ruling brings clarity to the taxation of lotteries , reinforcing the exclusive authority of states over gambling-related activities. The Supreme Court's Judgment Key Observations by the Bench 🔹 The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna & N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the Centre’s appeal, citing that the Finance Act amendments of 2012, 2015, and 2016 , which sought to levy service tax on lottery distributors, were ineffective . 🔹 The SC upheld that the business of lotteries operates on a Principal-to-Principal basis , meani...