LOTUS CLUB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in the above Writ Appeal is no longer res integra being covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court [Trivandrum Club Vs. Sales Tax Officer (Luxury Tax), 2012 3 KerLT 682]. The only distinction on facts is that the petitioner Club herein is located in Kochi. Even then, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Division Bench has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that a club could be charged with luxury tax on the renting of rooms it does at its premises. The learned counsel would argue for referring the matter to a Larger Bench for fresh consideration.

(2.) On the provisions under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 ('Act', for short) it is asserted that a Club would not fall under the definition of 'hotel' and hence the charge under Section 4 would be limited to the renting out of hall, auditorium or kalyanamandapam attached to such Clubs. Sub-Section (2A) of Sec. 4 being the levy per member at the rate of Rs.100 is the only levy that could be permitted validly under the Act, is the argument. The appellant does not dispute either of the levies under subsections (1) reference to renting out of halls etc. and (2A) of Sec. 4. The challenge is on the levy of renting of rooms in a hotel as available in the first limb of Sec. 4(1).

(3.) The learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions to buttress his contentions, all of which propound the very same principle: [Govind Saran Ganga Saran Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Others, 1985 Supp1 SCC 205] [Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad Vs. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, 1998 1 SCC 384] [Mathuram Agrawal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 8 SCC 667] [State of Bombay Vs. Automobile & Agricultural Industries Corporation, Bombay, 1961 12 STC 122] [Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes & Ors. Vs. LIS (Registered),2017 SCCOnline(SC) 1562] [Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Vs. First Income-Tax Officer, 2001 247 ITR 821] and [Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- I, New Delhi Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited, 2015 1 SCC 1].