The question that arises for consideration is whether the rectification applications filed by the petitioner under section 6(6) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) are maintainable, justifying an order for its consideration?

2. Petitioner contends that it has established an Ayurvedic Hospital, which has obtained registration under the Act, the certificate of which is Ext.P1. Treating the establishment as a hotel, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P2 order of assessment for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08. The 1st appellate authority modified the assessments, but on further appeals, the Appellate Tribunal passed Ext.P3 order, allowing the appeals filed by the petitioner and dismissing the appeals filed by the State against the modification ordered by the Appellate Authority. Department challenged the Tribunal's order by filing O.P(c) No.1928/12 before this Court. The case was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment. In this judgment, this Court held thus;

"The question, however, to be considered is whether the establishment of respondent was essentially a hospital or it was essentially a tourist resort where extensive facilities for ayurvedic treatment and massage are also provided."

3. Accordingly the Original Petition was allowed and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, the appeals were restored to the file of the Tribunal for reconsideration of the matter as directed in the judgment. Tribunal considered the matter afresh and by Et.P5 common order dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner and allowed the appeals filed by the State. In this order, the Tribunal upheld the finding of the assessing authority thus;

"Reading of the definitions of hotel, luxury and luxury provided in a hotel in sections 2 (e), 2(ee) and 2(f) together and applying them to the facts and circumstances of the present case with particular reference to the records produced before us, we find that the assessing authority is justified in treating the institution of the assessee as a 'hotel'. Hence we uphold the findings of the lower authorities in this point."

4. As far as the Ayurvedic treatment and other services provided in the hotel are concerned, the Tribunal held thus;

"It is clear from the impugned orders that Ayurvedic treatment and laundry services, though optional are provided by the hotel to the customers. These are certainly in the nature of services rendered by the hotel to the customers and therefore are squarely covered by the definition clause of "luxury provided in a hotel"."

5. Based on the directions of the Tribunal to accept the book figure and to recompute the taxable income, the assessing authority passed Ext.P6 assessment order levying tax and also quantified the interest payable as on November 2012. On receipt of the assessments order, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 series of applications before the Tribunal seeking rectification of Ext.P5 order. In paragraph 8 of Ext.P7 application, it is stated thus;

"8. U/s 4(2) of the Act, luxury tax shall be levied and collected in respect of a Hotel for charges of accommodation for residence and other amenities and services provided in the Hotel, excluding food and liquor. What is includible as per the charging section is "charges for accommodation for residence" and "charges for other amenities and services" provided in the Hotel. Treatment charges cannot be considered as charges for amenities and services provided in the Hotel, because the treatment charges and medicine go together and relates to the collection from the Ayurvedic Hospital run by our establishment. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner establishment is running the Ayurvedic Hospital in a full-fledged manner by employing qualified Ayurvedic Doctors and para-medical staff. The dominant activity is running Traditional Ayurvedic treatment centre which provides traditional ayurvedic treatment, consisting of Dhara, Pizhichil, Uzhichil and other forms of Punchakarma treatm