WINDSOR CASTLE Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Constitutional validity of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as the 'KTL Act'), particularly S.4, S.10, S.15 and S.16 forms the major challenge involved in these writ petitions. In WP (C) Nos. 33681 of 2006 and 18545 of 2007 (filed by the same petitioner) the revised assessment orders passed in exercise of the powers conferred under S.6(5) of the Act are also under challenge on various grounds.

(2.) The main grievance is with regard to the reckoning of the disputed turnover in respect of the Ayurveda treatment, Laundry charges, Beauty parlour, Boating charges, Swimming pool charges etc., to fix the tax liability, which were not completely taken at the time of passing the original assessment orders. It is also contended in some of the writ petitions that the above provision i.e., S.6(5), having been brought about only as per the Act 41 of 2005 w.e.f. 28/08/2005, the same could not have been pressed into service for revising the assessments already passed, referring to the 'escaped turnover' in respect of the assessment periods / years of much prior to the said date.

(3.) In WP (C) No. 22357 of 2004, the petitioner was served with Exts. P1 and P2 assessment orders under S.6(2) of the Act on best judgment basis, in respect of the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, also reckoning the turnover in respect of the Ayurveda treatment and Laundry charges as well, besides effecting some additions to the turnover returned. On challenging the same by way of appeal, Ext. P3 Common appellate order was passed by the Appellate Authority deleting the additions made, however sustaining levy of luxury tax on the charges collected for Ayurveda treatment and Laundry charges. Pursuant to Ext. P3, revised assessment orders have been passed as borne by Exts. P4 and P5, also issuing demand notices for the balance amount with interest. The petitioner is aggrieved of the said proceedings and seeks to quash Exts. P1 to P5 to the extent, tax is imposed for Ayurveda treatment and Laundry charges and also to declare that levy of interest is illegal and unauthorised, as interest can be demanded only after issuing the original assessment order dated 18/06/2003, prior to which the petitioner was not a defaulter. Since the petitioner has effected payment of tax in the meanwhile, refund is claimed in this regard.