Marriage hall definition under luxury tax law does not cover auditoriums let for non-marriage events.

Premises let out for exhibitions, seminars, workshops, board meetings and conferences, without marriage-related facilities such as furniture, electricity, decoration, cooking, feeding or refreshments, do not fall within the statutory definition of a "marriage hall" under the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979. Since section 3C applies only to premises satisfying that definition, such use is not chargeable to luxury tax on that basis. A prior interpretation confined the levy to accommodation provided for marriage, reception or connected matters. The endorsement requiring registration was therefore held illegal and unsustainable, while the broader question whether the letting independently amounted to "luxury" was not decided.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's auditorium and conference hall, let out for exhibitions, seminars, meetings and similar purposes without marriage-related facilities, fell within the definition of "marriage hall" under the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 so as to attract luxury tax and justify the impugned registration endorsement.

Analysis: The statutory levy under section 3C applies only to premises that answer the definition of "marriage hall" in section 2(5B). On the facts found, the premises were let out for public use such as exhibitions, seminars, workshops, board meetings and conferences, and were not used for marriage, reception or allied matters. The premises were also let without facilities such as furniture, electricity, decoration, cooking, feeding or refreshments. A prior decision applying the same definition had held that only accommodation provided for marriage, reception or matters connected therewith would be chargeable. The question whether such letting would independently amount to "luxury" under section 2(4B) was not taken up for decision.

Conclusion: The premises did not fall within the statutory definition of "marriage hall" and were not chargeable to luxury tax under section 3C; the endorsement requiring registration was therefore illegal and unsustainable.

---