K. Harilal, J.

1. The questions that arise for consideration in this writ appeal revolve around the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section (4) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). Precisely, they are: What does the expression "premises" employed in the above provision mean and intend? What is the territorial extent implied in the expression 'premises' in the said provision. The appellant is a charitable institution registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary and Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The appellant is managing and administrating the temple known by name 'Ayyappankavu Temple' and runs a Higher Secondary School, another English Medium School and having an Auditorium. According to the appellant, the Auditorium is situated within the premises of the temple, a place of worship, as contemplated under proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act, though there lies a road in between the temple and the Auditorium. So, there cannot be any instance of luxury tax in view of the exemption granted under the said proviso to the said Section. But without any regard to the said provision, Exts. P12 to P14 orders imposing penalty under Section 17A and Exts. P15 to P17 demand notices were issued. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition was filed challenging the rejection of the plea of exemption claimed under the proviso to the said Section. In addition to the said claim, the appellant sought for a declaration that Section4(2)(c)(1) of the Act is ultra vires of the Constitution of India.

2. The respondent opposed the said claim of exemption contending that the temple and the Auditorium are not located in the same premises and they are functioning as different and distinct entities. The Auditorium is situated on the eastern side of the PWD road by name 'Chittoor Road'; but the temple is situating on the western side of the said road. So also, there lies another road by name 'Ayyppankavu East Extension Road', which branches off from the Chittoor Road towards eastern side between the temple ground and the Auditorium. In short, since the roads lie in between the sites where temple and Auditorium are situated, the Auditorium shall be deemed to be located outside the premises of the temple contrary to the statutory requirements under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act.

3. After considering the rival pleas raised factually as well as legally, the learned Single Judge rejected all the contentions raised by the appellant challenging the legal and constitutional validity of Section 4 of the Act relying on various decisions held by the Apex Court. So also, the learned Single Judge rejected the claim of exemption raised under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act; but remanded the matter back after setting aside all the penalty orders to reconsider the question of penalty and to pass orders afresh. The legality and propriety of the finding whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the said claim of exemption is challenged in this writ appeal on various grounds.

4. Heard Dr. K.B. Mohamed Kutty, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Dr. Sebastian Chempappilly, the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes.

5. Though this appeal is seen filed on various grounds, the learned Counsel for the petitioner premised his arguments in extenso challenging the findings whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the claim of exemption under the said proviso. The sum and substance of the arguments is that the learned Single Judge erred in conceiving the location of the Auditorium and misconceived the territorial extent implied in the expression "premises" employed under the said proviso. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the legislative intent for granting such an exemption to place of worship owned by religious institutions and the said interpretation given by the learned Single Judge would defeat the object of the said provision.

6. Per contra, the lea