Antony Dominic, J.

1. The issues raised in these writ petitions are connected. Therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. WP(C)No.5623 of 2009 is treated as the leading case.

3. The petitioner is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. Ext.P1 is its Bye-laws. Petitioner owns an Auditorium, viz, Fine Arts Hall, Ernakulam. On 22.4.2008, third respondent inspected the Auditorium of the petitioner and prepared a Shop Inspection Report. It was found that the petitioner was letting out the Auditorium on rent for cultural programmes as well as other functions like Marriages, Meetings, Receptions etc.

4. Thereupon notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon them to produce the books of accounts for the years 2005-2006 to 2008-1009. On verification of the books of accounts, it was found by the respondents that they had received Rs.5,45,700/-, Rs.6,40,150/-, Rs.9,43,280/- and Rs.61,200/- respectively during the aforesaid assessment years. Thereupon, Ext.P7 notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 17A of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). To that notice, petitioner filed Ext.P8 reply. Objections raised were overruled and Exts.P9 to P13 orders were passed imposing penalty on the petitioner as provided under Section 17A of the Act, being double the amount of luxury sought to be evaded by them. It was thereupon, they filed this writ petition.

5. In the writ petition, petitioner seeks a declaration that the Act is inapplicable to the Society and therefore tax is not liable to be paid. In the alternative, they also seek a declaration that Section 4 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the legislative competence of the State. As a consequence, they also seek the quashing of Exts.P9 to P17 penalty orders and other notices issued to them.

6. In so far as the prayer of the petitioner to declare the Act unconstitutional is concerned, that issue has already been considered by this court and in the judgment in M/s.Windsor Castle v. Commercial Tax Officer (Works Contract) and another (2012 (20) KTR 321) the constitutionality of the Act has been upheld. Therefore, this issue is no more res integra.

7. Now what remains is the contention of the petitioner that the Act is inapplicable to the petitioner society. This contention is raised on the basis that as per Section 4 and Section 2(f), these provisions will apply only in respect of Auditoriums where accommodation for residence for consideration is provided. It is contended that such a facility is not provided by the petitioner to attract the provisions of the Act.

8. In my view, these contentions will have to be answered in the light of the provisions of the Act. Section 2 (f) and Section 4(1)(i) of the Act being relevant, are extracted for easy reference.

"2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

(a)xx

(b)xx

(bb)xx

(c)xxx

(ca)xxx

(d)xxx

(dd)xxx

(de)xxxx

(df)xxxx

(e)xxxx

(ee)xxx

(f) " Luxury provided in a hotel, house boat, hall, auditorium, Kalyanamandapam or place of like nature" means accommodation for residence or use and other amenities and services provided in a hotel or house boat or hall or auditorium or kalyanamandapam or place of like nature (the rate of charges of accommodation for residence and other amenities and services provided excluding charges of food and liquor is one hundred and fifty rupees per day or more).

4. Levy and collection of luxury tax.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, three shall be levied and collected a tax, hereinafter called the 'laxury tax', in respect of any luxury provided,-

(i) in a hotel, house boat, hall, auditorium or kalyanamandapam or including those attached to hotels, clubs, Kalyanamandapam and places of the like nature which are rented for accommodation for residence or used for conducting functions, whether public or private, exibition;