LAWS(KAR)-2011-9-235

EAST CULTURAL ASSOCIATION NO. 100 FEET ROAD INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE - 560008, REPRESENTED BY ITS HON. SECRETARY SHRI K.S. THANTRY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPAR

Decided On September 29, 2011
East Cultural Association No. 100 Feet Road Indiranagar Bangalore - 560008, Represented By Its Hon. Secretary Shri K.S. Thantry Appellant
V/S
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Additional Chief Secretary And Principal Secretary To Government Finance Depar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee has preferred this revision petition against the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal holding that under Section 3-B of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979, the assessee is liable to pay luxury tax on Halls used for conducting birthdays, anniversaries and get-togethers, for which requisite charges are collected. The assessee is a cultural association and duly registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979. They filed their annual return in Form III-H declaring the total charges received for accommodation for residence at Rs. 4,43,450-00 and paid Luxury Tax amount of Rs. 55,431-25. On verification of books of accounts, the Assessing Authority issued a Proposition Notice and proposed to levy tax along with penalty. Assessee filed its objections. Over-ruling the said objections, the assessment order came to be passed and penalty was also imposed.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who uphold the levy of tax and penalty but modified the penalty by reducing it to 50%.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The main ground urged was that Halls were rented out only to members of the association for conducting birthdays, anniversaries and get-togethers and religious poojas, etc., For levy of tax under Section 3-B, two requirements should be satisfied-(i) that the luxury in the form of conference hall is available and (ii) luxury is provided by collecting there for. In the case of the assessee, the said requirements are not established and therefore, the levy under Section 3-B is illegal. The Tribunal upheld the order passed by the authorities and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee has preferred this revision.