1. Constitutional validity of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act 1976 (herein after referred to as the ‘KTL Act’), particularly Sections 4, 10, 15 and 16 forms the majo0r challenge involved in these writ petitions. In W.P.(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 Section 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 ie., Section 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 revision 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 W.P.(C) No.22357 of 2004, the petitioner was served with Exts. P1 and P2 assessment orders under Section 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 tp P5 to the extent, tax is imposed for Ayurveda treatment and Laundry charges and also to declare that levy of interest is illegal and unauthorized, 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.

4. The Petitioner is the same in W.P.(C) 33681 of 2006 and 18545 of 2007. The proceedings under challenge in W.P.(C) No.33681 of 2006 are in respect of the assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04; while the dispute in the other case is with regard to the assessment year 2004-05.

5. In W.P.(C) No.33681 of 2006, Ext.P1 original assessment order for the year 2000-01 was passed on 30.10.2005, assessing a portion of the charges collected by the petitioner through engagement of some outside agencies, particularly towards Ayurveda treatment, Beauty Parlour, Boating, Travel charges, Trekking charges etc. Similar orders were passed in respect of the other three assessment years (2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04) as well. As per Section 4 of the Act, the charges for accommodation and amenities and services provided in a Hotel (excluding for food, drinks and telephone) alone are liable to be taxed at the relevant rates, based on the quantum of charges collected, which requirement is stated as satisfied by the petitioner filing returns and remitting the tax due. However, certain services were extended by outside agencies to the residents as well as non-residents in the Hotel. According to the petitioner, in respect of such services, the petitioner has only functioned as a collection agent, agreeing to have ‘commission’ and these figures have also been duly accounted upon which there could have been any luxury. However, 1/10th of the said amounts was also reckoned as taxable turnover by the assessing authority, whole passing Ext.P1 original assessment order. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice for the yea