HOTEL UTSAV PVT LTD Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 9th May, 1995 passed by the District Collector, Vadodara (Annexure 'E') and order dated 9th January, 1996 passed by the Luxury Tax Commissioner, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar (Annexure 'G' to the petition).

(2.) The petitioner, a private limited company, runs a residential hotel at Vadodara in the name of 'Hotel Utsav'. The dispute in the present case pertains to payment of luxury tax under the provisions of Gujarat Tax on Luxuries (Hotels and Lodging Houses Act), 1977 [the Act] for the period from 27th June, 1991 to 25th March, 1994. During this period, there was delay regarding payment of some portion of luxury tax ranging from 12 to 141 days. By a notice issued in August, 1994, the petitioner was informed that an amount of Rs.14328.50 was liable to be recovered from it for the period April 1991 to February, 1994 for delayed payment of luxury tax and was called upon to deposit the same within a period of seven days. It was further stated that if the interest is not paid within the said period the same would be recovered as arrear of land revenue under section 8(2) of the Act. The interest on the amount which was not paid within time was calculated at the rate of 2% per month under section 7A of the Act. Upon receipt of the said notice the petitioner's representative remained present on 27th January, 1995 in the Office of the District Collector to represent his case. The matter was heard by the Resident Deputy Collector, before whom it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Act does not provide for simple interest at the rate of two per cent per month. The petitioner also put all the aforesaid facts on record by a communication dated 28th January, 1995.

(3.) Thereafter, by a notice dated 5th April, 1995, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.14328.50 as interest assessed under section 7A of the Act in response to which the petitioner by a communication dated 8th April, 1995 reiterated the same contentions. Ultimately by an order dated 9th May, 1995, the respondent No.1 confirmed the demand raised vide the notice issued in August, 1994 and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.13615.50 and simultaneously, attached the petitioner's bank account under section 154 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and recovered the amount. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Luxury Tax Commissioner who, vide the impugned order dated 9th January, 1996, confirmed the order passed by the respondent No.1. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.