Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. These writ appeals arise from a common judgment rendered holding that charges collected for ayurvedic treatment, for laundry services and charges collected from customers for boating arrangements by the hotel where they are accommodated, attract luxury tax. The appellants contend and it is argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for them that the laundry charges, charges received for boating and ayurvedic treatment charges do not come within the purview of 'luxury provided in a hotel' as defined in Section 2(f) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. According to the appellants, that term takes in only accommodation for residence and other amenities and other services provided in a hotel and the aforesaid charges are not received for any luxury provided in the hotel. It is pointed out that the term is defined to mean what it says and therefore, it cannot be extended beyond. It is further argued that the definition of the term 'luxury' in Section 2(ee) does not take within its sweep such services which do not minister comfort or pleasure. The appellants would point out that the amenities specified under Section 4(2) are only amenities like air-conditioning, supply of hot water etc. provided in the room where accommodation is provided and which is not optional for any specified category of rooms. It is also argued that ayurvedic treatment, boating made available through other tourist service providers and laundry are provided to customers only on their specific demands and therefore, will not come under the general amenities and facilities provided in a hotel.

2. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader for the Department of Taxes argued, among other things, that having regard to the definition of the term 'luxury provided in a hotel' under Section 2 (f) of the Act and the definition of 'luxury' in Section 2(ee), the view taken by the learned single Judge cannot be criticised. It is argued that the definition 'luxury provided in a hotel' is a selfcontained definition and it emphatically takes within its sweep, all amenities and services provided in a hotel except charges which are statutorily excluded. The definition of term 'luxury' in Section 2(ee) is wide enough to take in all such services, it is argued.

3. The learned single Judge having noted that Piem Hotels v. State of Karnataka [129 STC 373] was rendered without noticing the decision of this Court in Kovalam Ashoka Beach Resort v. Sales Tax Officer [14 KTR 417], has dealt with all the issues arising for decision, independent of precedent law as well. It was pointedly noted by the learned Judge that the contention of the petitioners who are now appellants before us, is that the charging section provides for rate of luxury tax dependent on the rates charged for accommodation for residence and other amenities and services provided in the hotel and that, therefore, only such of the amenities and services covered by standard rates charged from every customer in the hotel are covered by luxury tax. The plea that ayurvedic treatment, laundry, and boating are optional services and therefore, not covered by charging section, has been dealt with in the impugned judgment.

4. Section 2(ee) defines 'luxury' to mean a commodity or service that ministers comfort or pleasure. Sub-section 2 of Section 4 provides for levy of luxury tax at rates classified on the rates of charges for accommodation for residence and other amenities and services excepting those which are excluded. This, however, is put at rate applicable per day per room. The definition of 'luxury provided in a hotel' in Section 2(f) means accommodation for residence and other amenities and services provided in a hotel. When these terms are taken together, the mere prescription that the rate would be per day per room cannot be held to mean that luxury tax is leviable only on rate of charges for accommodation for residence and other amenities and services attach