Mohan Lal Nama W/O Late Shri Murlidhar Nama vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that all the prayers made in the present writ petition were considered and decided by the same Court in a previous case, D.B. Civil Writ No. 20779/2019 (Ravindra Singh Chaudhary Vs. Union of India and Ors.). That previous petition was dismissed by an order dated 16.10.2020. Consequently, the present matter was covered by the aforesaid judgment. The Court found no reason to deviate from its previous decision. Therefore, the present petition was dismissed in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Ravindra Singh Chaudhary. The specific findings on each of the petitioner's prayers, as raised in the issues, are not detailed but are implicitly covered by the dismissal of the petition based on the prior judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohan Lal Nama, filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs concerning the online fantasy game 'Dream11'. The petitioner prayed for a writ of prohibition against respondents 1-4 (Union of India, State of Rajasthan, and GST authorities) to stop the gambling organized by respondent 5 (Dream11 Fantasy Private Limited) under the guise of a fantasy game. The petitioner also sought to declare 'Dream11' illegal under the Public Gambling Act, 1867, and requested directions to charge GST at 28% on the whole transaction, impose penalties for GST evasion, and initiate criminal proceedings against Dream11. The petition was filed before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Fantasy Game 'Dream11' organized by respondent No. 5 should be declared illegal under the provisions of the Public Gambling Act, 1867? The petitioner argued that 'Dream11' is a form of gambling and should be prohibited. The respondents' arguments are not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the respondents No. 1 & 4 should be directed to charge GST on the whole transaction deposited by participants? The petitioner contended for taxation on the entire transaction amount. The respondents' arguments are not recorded. 3. Whether the respondents No. 1 & 4 should be directed to charge GST at 28% instead of 18%? The petitioner sought a higher GST rate. The respondents' arguments are not recorded. 4. Whether suitable orders/directions should be issued to impose heavy penalties against respondent No. 5 for evasion of GST and to initiate criminal proceedings? The petitioner sought punitive actions against Dream11 for alleged GST evasion. The respondents' arguments are not recorded.