SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
Pearlview Hotels Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows:-
The petitioner has filed annual return for the year 2007-08 under Section 5 of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act,1976 (for short 'the Act'). The first respondent, the assessing authority, the Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax), Kannur, found that the accounts were not acceptable and notice was issued under Section 6(2) of the Act, proposing to complete assessment by adding income under the various heads, totalling to an amount of Rs.22,07,574/-. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed a detailed reply contending that the swimming pool charges cannot be taxed as it is from non-residents of the hotel and the addition of hall rent is improper as the amount is below taxable and the other collections such as the hire charges, sight seeing charges, lawn charges, charges on services, miscellaneous receipts, insurance claim received, new year programme collection etc. were not from the residents of the hotel, but from non-residents and hence they were not taxable. The first respondent, however, found that the said arguments raised by the petitioner were not acceptable and Ext.P1 assessment order was passed by the
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.