VEERASHAIVA SANGHA Vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-society in the present revision under Section 11A of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (for short "the Act") has called in question the order dated 24-5-2010 made in STA No. 350/2007 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby, an appeal filed by the petitioner-society under Section 9 of the Act, arising from the order passed by the first appellate authority dated 12-3-2007, came to be dismissed. The first appellate authority had partly allowed the appeal filed against the order of assessment dated 28-12-2006, under Section 6(1) of the Act read with Rule 6 (2) of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Rules, 1979 (for short "the Rules") passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Transition) (for short "Luxury Tax Officer"). The relevant assessment year that we are concerned in the present revision is 2004-2005. The petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961. The only asset of the Society is Kalyana Mantapa (marriage hall) which they let out for marriages and other functions on payment. The petitioner-society, is a registered proprietor/dealer under Section 4A of the Act. They submitted annual returns under Section 5 for the year ending on 31-3-2005 followed by monthly returns on 7-7-2006 declaring the rent received of Rs. 3,50,500/- and admitted tax liability of Rs. 58,575/-. The Luxury Tax Officer, however, having found that the amount of tax paid was less than the amount payable, issued a notice to the petitioner-society. In response thereto, the petitioner on 7-7-2006 produced a ledger and bills for verification in support of the returns. On verification thereof, it was revealed that the petitioner had collected the following charges for providing luxuries:

(2.) There does not appear to be any dispute that the above collections were made for providing marriage hall for functions on payment except the donations. The petitioner in response to the notice dated 20-11-2006, had filed their objections on 26-12-2006. They did not admit their liability to pay tax on the donations. Their claim in the response to the notice, in brief, is as under:

(3.) On the basis of materials placed on record, the Luxury Tax Officer, vide order dated 28-12-2006, rejected the claim of the petitioner-society as not tenable and concluded the assessment as under: