1. By this writ petition, following prayers have been made:

"(i) please to declare the provision of Section 2(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Tax on Luxuries (hotels and lodging houses) Act, 1990 amended by the Act of 1996 and further by the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2007 as unconstitutional, ultra vires & against the spirit and provisions of Article 303 R/W entry no. 62 of state list of schedule 7 of the constitutional of India to the extent whereby the Luxury Tax has been imposed on marriage function.

(ii) please to hold that the definition of business giving under Section 2(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Tax on Luxuries (hotels and lodging houses) Act, 1990 amended by the Act of 1996 and further by the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2007 does not include the marriage ceremony/function, condolence meetings/function and religious pravachan/ function.

(iii) please to direct/restrain the respondents from collecting luxury tax under the Rajasthan Tax on Luxuries (hotels and lodging houses) Act, 1990 amended by the Act of 1996 and further by the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2007.

(iv) please to direct the respondents to refund the luxury tax already collected by them from the members of the petitioner samiti running marriage places, on marriage ceremonies/ functions."

2. It is contended that petitioner - Jaipur Vivah Sthal Samiti (for short 'the society') represents around 300 members and being a registered society under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, is competent to maintain this writ petition. The respondents-State, by amending section 2(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Tax on Luxuries (Hotels & Lodging Houses) Act, 1990 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') amended the definition of 'business'. In view of the amended definition any activity of providing residential accommodation or any place for the purpose of organising parties, ceremonies or functions and any other service in connection with, or ancillary to, such activities for monetary consideration, whether or not such activities are carried on with motive to make gain or profit is considered to be business. The amended definition of 'business' has been misinterpreted by the respondents thereby raising demands of luxury tax from members of the society.

3. Members of the society are providing facilities for arranging marriage thus luxury tax cannot be imposed on them. Marriage is not only a social but pious work thus should not be termed to be 'business' in any manner. In Metropolitan cities and big cities like Jaipur sufficient residential houses/homes to arrange and celebrate marriages do not exist and Municipal Corporation is not in a position to provide such facilities. Members of the society thus run marriage gardens under the licence obtained from the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. Their work has been termed to be 'business' ignoring that they are carrying out a pious work of marriage. The definition of word 'business' as provided under section 2(1)(a) of the Act is violative of Article 303 of the Constitution of India read with Entry 62 of the State List provided under Seventh Schedule of the Constitution thus deserves to be struck down.

4. Members of the petitioner society cannot otherwise be termed to be hotelier or doing luxury work in view of definition of 'hotelier' and 'luxury' provided under the Act of 1990 but, surprisingly, members of the society have been considered to be hoteliers as well as provider of luxury. Thus, ignoring the definition provided under section 2 of the Act of 1990 tax has been demanded from the members of the society which may be declared as illegal.

5. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the amended definition of the word 'business' is not ultra vires to the Constitution. It does not hit Article 303 of the Constitution or goes contrary to the Entry 62 of the State List under Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Members of the society are none else but those in business of arranging marriage parties and other partie