IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
M/s Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The Intelligence Officer, Kumily - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 20728 of 2015
Decided On : 29-03-2017
Taxation - Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 - Section 2, 4 and 17A - Assessment - Definition of "luxuries" - Levy of Tax under - Challenging two assessment orders and penalties proposed or imposed under Section 17A of Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 - Petitioners are registered under LT Act and have Resorts at various tourist centers; inside State - Petitioners were issued with notices for assessment in two instances and under Section 17A of LT Act calling upon them to show cause as to why accommodation provided to those persons who had taken membership under timeshare arrangement were not disclosed in returns or books of accounts and why petitioners have not paid tax for the component of "luxury" enjoyed by the said members - Held, Agreement between the assessee and the member to provide the privileges without reference to the increase in rates can apply only to the rates/tariff for the room and cannot apply in the case of a statutory levy - Admitted by the assessee that only room rent/tariff is not collected from the members at the time of residence and all other privileges which a member enjoys have a price and luxury tax too is collected - Measure employed by the assessee in determining liquidated damages to a member, in the event of cancellation after confirmation is also the present rate/tariff as fixed by the assessee in a particular resort and that is the charges on which tax is to be collected if the residence is enjoyed.
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
1. Challenging two assessment orders and penalties proposed or imposed under Section 17A of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 [for brevity “LT Act”], the petitioners raise the question of whether the facilities availed by the members of the unique, newly developed “Time-share arrangements” can be brought under the definition of “luxuries” and taxed under the LT Act.
2. The writ petitions are filed by three entities carrying on Resorts under timeshare arrangements; namely M/s. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. [for brevity “MHR”], M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Limited [“SHR”] and The Goan Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd [“GBR”].
3. W.P. (C) No. 20728 of 2015, which was referred to by the petitioners, challenge the penalty order issued against MHR for the years 2013-14 (Exhibit P3) and 2014-15 (Exhibit P4) and the notice of demand for 2013-14 (Exhibit P9) and 2014-15 (Exhibit P10) issued with respect to their Lake View Resorts at Chinnakkanal, Munnar. W.P. (C) No. 20674 of 2015 is filed by MHR with respect to their resort at Poovar, Thiruvananthapuram; which was issued with Exhibits P4 and P5 notices, for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15, under Section 17A of the LT Act. W.P. (C) No. 32579 of 2015 is against two Resorts of MHR at Kumarakom and Ashtamudi, Chavara, wherein Exhibit P12 is an assessment order for the year 2012-13 and Exhibits P21 and P23 penalty orders under the LT Act for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15; all with respect to the resort at Kumarakom. Exhibit P25 is the notice for the year 2013-14 against the Resort at Ashtamudi, Chavara. W.P. (C) No. 13553 of 2016 is again against the Resort of MHR at Ashtamudi, Chavara; the challenge being to Exhibit P1 penalty order for the year 2013-14. In W.P. (C) No. 13062, MHR challenge the penalty orders issued for the years 2013-14 (Exhibit P6) and 2014-15 (Exhibit P8) against their Resort at Poovar, Thiruvananthapuram. W.P. (C) Nos. 25032 of 2016, 25033 of 2016 and 19615 of 2015 respectively challenge the penalty orders issued for the years 2012-13 (Exhibit P4), 2014-15 (Exhibit P6) and 2013-14 (Exhibit P6) against the “Terrace Green Munnar Resort” of SHR. W.P. (C) No. 34100 of 2016 impugn a interim order on condition passed by the Appellate Authority in an appeal against assessment for the year 2014-15 of GHR. The findings in the various orders, are more or less similar and this Court has referred to the findings from the impugned orders of assessment and penalty in W.P. (C) No. 32579 of 2015 and W.P. (C) No. 20728 of 2015.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Mohan Parasaran placed compelling arguments for the petitioners and the State was ably represented by learned Senior Counsel Sri. R. Venkataraman.
5. The petitioners are registered under the LT Act and have Resorts at various tourist centers; inside the State. The petitioners were issued with notices for assessment in two instances and under Section 17A of the LT Act calling upon them to show cause as to why the accommodation provided to those persons who had taken membership under the timeshare arrangement were not disclosed in the returns or the books of accounts and why the petitioners have not paid tax for the component of “luxury” enjoyed by the said members.
6. The petitioners would contend that timeshare facility is a unique concept, by which the parent Company; which owns or rents out Resorts situated all over the country and even outside, gives membership by selling “Vacation Ownership” [Timeshare] providing holiday facilities to its members. A member can avail of “7 Nights/8 Days” holiday every year in a span of 33/25/10 years, depending on eligibility and availability at any of the Resorts of the assessee existing at the time of membership and acquired during the course of membership. When the members so exercise their right to enjoy a holiday in any of the Resorts for a specified period, they are not charged for the accommodation. For any other facilities enjoyed during the stay, th
Bihta Cooperative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. vs. Bank of Bihar
CCE vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 597
Chakkiath Brothers (M/s.) vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam
E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Express Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat
Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2005) 2 SCC 515
Sree Krishna Electricals vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Sundaram Pillai vs. Pattabhiraman
Tata Sky Ltd. vs. State of M.P. (2013) 4 SCC 656
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.