Temple accommodation not treated as hotel where services were charitable, not commercial business, under luxury tax law.

The writ petitions were maintainable because the assessment orders were final orders and the controversy was predominantly legal, so the availability of an appellate remedy did not bar judicial review. On merits, a temple-run choultry providing accommodation to devotees was not a "hotel" under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1981, because the activity was not carried on "by way of business" and lacked a profit motive. Charges collected for maintenance did not convert the religious and charitable accommodation into a commercial venture. The tax and penalty levy was therefore unsustainable, and the assessments were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were premature or barred by availability of an alternate statutory remedy; (ii) Whether a temple-run choultry providing accommodation to devotees fell within the definition of "hotel" under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1981 so as to attract levy of tax and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were premature or barred by availability of an alternate statutory remedy

Analysis: The assessment orders were final orders determining tax and penalty after considering objections, so the writ petitions could not be treated as premature. The existence of an appellate remedy did not justify refusal to examine the matter at the stage of final disposal, particularly when the controversy was predominantly legal and the relevant factual assertions of the petitioner stood uncontroverted.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable and could be examined on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether a temple-run choultry providing accommodation to devotees fell within the definition of "hotel" under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1981 so as to attract levy of tax and penalty

Analysis: The Act applied only to a building where residential accommodation was provided "by way of business" for monetary consideration. The term "business" was not defined in the Act, and the definition in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held inapplicable because the two enactments served different purposes. In the common legal sense, business requires an activity carried on with a profit motive. On the uncontroverted facts, the temple's accommodation arrangements were part of its religious and charitable activities, meant for devotees and pilgrims, and were not carried on as a commercial venture. The collection of charges, even if regular, was only incidental to maintenance and did not convert the activity into business.

Conclusion: The temple-run accommodation was not a "hotel" within the meaning of the Act, and the levy of tax and penalty was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessments were quashed and the authority was restrained from applying the luxury tax enactment to the appellant's temple accommodation activity.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a taxing statute using the expression "by way of business", liability arises only when the accommodation activity is carried on as a commercial business with a profit motive; a religious or charitable institution providing accommodation to devotees as part of its objects does not fall within that expression merely because charges are collected for maintenance.

---