IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 5276 of 2002() --------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- TAJ RESIDENCY, P.T.USHA ROAD,KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MR.ARAVIND KAIMAL. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SMT.PRIYA MAHESH SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SALES TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT AND LUXURY TAX), KOZHIKODE. 3. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 5276 of 2002() ORDER ON CMP.NO.9336/2002 IN OP.NO.5276/2002-C. DISMISSED. 9.4.2008. Sd/- T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. Petitioner's Exhibits:- P1: Copy of the notice issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner dtd.4.11.2000. P2: Copy of the reply issued by the petitioner dtd.10.11.2000 to the 2nd respondent. P3: Copy of the assessment order issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner dated 18.11.2000. P4: Copy of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent dated 20.2.2001. P5: Copy of the order of the 3rd respondent to the petitioner dtd.13.11.2001. P6: Copy of the order of this Hon'ble Court in CMP.No.20797/2001 in OP.No.13097/2001 dtd.11.4.2001. Respondents' Exhibits:- Nil. ( true copy ) PA to Judge. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= OP.No.5276 of 2002-C. ========================= Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The main relief sought for is for quashing Exts.P3 to P5 which are proceedings making the petitioner liable for payment of luxury tax. The issue raised by the petitioner is covered against them by the decision of this Court reported in Casino Hotel v. State of Kerala (2007(15) KTR 485). Going by the principles stated in the above judgment, the petitioner will be liable to pay the luxury tax imposed on Ayurvedic treatment. The relevant finding is contained in para.4 of the judgment which is extracted below: “It is clear from the impugned orders that Ayurvedic treatment and laundry services, though optional, are provided by the hotel to the customers. These are certainly in the nature of services rendered by the hotel to the customers and therefore are squarely covered by the definition clause of “luxury provided in a hotel”. I am unable to follow the decision of the Karnataka High Court because provisions of both the statutes are not similar. While under the Kerala Act tax is payable for rent and charges collected for every service and amenity provided in a hotel except on charges for food, drunk OP.No.5276 of 2002-C. -: 2 :- and telephone charges, the Karnataka Act enumerates items of services that attract luxury tax. It is seen from the provisions of the Karnataka Act that laundry charges are specifically excluded from the scope of luxury tax. In the circumstances, I reconfirm the view taken in the earlier decision of this Court and hold that laundry charges attract luxury tax. Similar is the position with regard to Ayurvedic treatment provided to customers whether it is in the nature of treatment or massage the same being a service provided in the hotel, attracts luxury tax.” I am in full agreement with the above dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the Original Petition is dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-