JUDGMENT Sinha, J. 1. Heard. 2. Mr. A. R. Madhav Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 24.09.2013 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.32 of 2012 (M/s. Future Gaming Solutions India Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others) and the same may accordingly be allowed. 3. An objection has been raised by the Counsel for Union of India. According to him, the three impugned letters were issued from the Mumbai Office, thus, the cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction of the Mumbai High Court, therefore, the Writ Petition would not be maintainable. 4. In Writ Petition (C) No.32 of 2012, a Division Bench of this Court has made a declaration that the transaction in the lottery tickets are not liable to service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 and the three communications issued in the said matter were quashed. On perusal of the entire judgment, it would appear that the question relating to territorial jurisdiction was also considered and the findings have been recorded vide paragraph 44. We quote – “44. However, before entering into the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to deal with the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the Writ Petition, an objection that was raised on behalf of the Respondents. The objection, in our view, has no merit in view of the admitted position that the questioned agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 dated 10-08-2009 was entered into at Gangtok in respect of the lottery of the Government of Sikkim, Respondent No.4. The draws of the lottery are held at Gangtok and the prize of the winning lottery tickets are also disbursed at Gangtok. The Respondent No. 3 has his Office at Gangtok and the impugned letter C.No.V(307/ST/FGSIPvtLtd/GTK/2009/295 dated 06.07.2012 was also issued from his Office at Gangtok addressed to the registered Office of the Petitioner at Gagntok within the jurisdiction of this Court. In view of this, the objection does not appear to have any merit and is accordingly rejected”. 5. The Respondent No. 3 has his Office at Gangtok and the impugned letter C.No.V(307/ST/FGSIPvtLtd/GTK/2009/295 dated 06.07.2012 was also issued from his Office at Gangtok addressed to the registered Office of the Petitioner at Gagntok within the jurisdiction of this Court. In view of this, the objection does not appear to have any merit and is accordingly rejected”. 5. It is not disputed that in the instant case the agreement had taken place in the State of Sikkim and the other events to run the lottery business had also taken place in the State of Sikkim as in the matter of M/s. Future Gaming (supra). Therefore, as decided in the said matter, the objection raised by the Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 does not appear to be correct and we accordingly turn down the same as the issue stands already concluded. 6. On due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.32 of 2012 and it can be allowed on the same terms. 7. We, accordingly, allow this Writ Petition in terms of the earlier judgment and make a declaration that the transaction in the lottery tickets are not liable to service tax under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, and, we also quash the three communications vide F.NO.ST-1/Mum/Div.III/2012-13/523 dated 16.01.2013 (Annexure P-12), F.No.ST/Mum/Div-III/Gr.VII/SCR/Tashi/12/1213 dated 18/02/2013 (Annexure P16) and C.No.V(30)3 ST/MJSC/GTK/2008/152 dated 07.07.2009 (Annexure P22). 8. There shall be no order as to costs.