opportunity to gamble on football results is a service comparable with the provision of water and electricity.

Chief Justice the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward yesterday ruled against Mr. Barry John Kessel, a Littlewoods Pools agent, who had appealed against the payment of foreign currency tax.

Mr. Kessel disputes that tax should be levied on pools bets which he sends back to Littlewoods in the United Kingdom. He appealed against the imposition of the tax by the Accountant General in 1991.

Describing himself as a Littlewoods concessionaire, Mr. Kessel collects bets on British football results for a commission of 10 percent.

The bet is then sent to Littlewoods, a UK bookmaker, to be included in a pool from which the winnings are paid to successful "punters''. Littlewoods takes a share of that pool.

Before July 9, 1991, no foreign currency purchase tax was levied on pools bets. Mr. Kessel received a letter that day from the Accountant General's Debt Collection Officer Ms Jene Charles.

It read: "After recent consultation with the Attorney General Chambers I am writing to inform you that Foreign Currency Purchase Tax should be paid by your goodselves on overseas remittances for Pools Bets.'' In the Foreign Currency Purchase Tax Act 1975 it read that transactions exempted from the tax were "payments properly to be made for services rendered or to be rendered.'' Lawyer for Mr. Kessel, Mr. Tim Marshall claimed that Littlewoods was rendering a service by providing a facility for placing bets and "bringing the punters together''.

Mr. Marshall attempted to define services by using Webster's and Collins' dictionaries.

Solicitor General Mr. Barrie Meade, arguing for the Accountant General, pointed out the Oxford definition -- "The provision or system of supplying a public need, e.g. transportation or the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone, etc.'' Mr. Meade argued that underlying the concept of service is that the person must receive a benefit. He contended the majority of punters were merely deprived of their money which was not a benefit.

The Chief Justice said: "To claim an exemption under the 1975 Act, the claimant must establish that demonstrably the provision applies to him, not that it may apply on a liberal interpretation.

"The onus is on the plaintiff to bring himself clearly within the exemption.'' He said Mr. Kessel had failed to do that and said that foreign currency tax was payable.