Limitation on suo motu revision and hotel luxury tax on billed outside services were both examined under the statute.

A revisional authority cannot invoke suo motu revision to revive a matter after the reassessment period under the statute has expired; limitation on the assessing power also constrains revision, and the revisional action was therefore impermissible. On luxury tax, the levy on "luxury provided in a hotel" extends beyond amenities physically located inside the hotel building: services such as vehicle hire, boat hire, trekking and sightseeing, when arranged and billed by the hotel for guests, form part of the taxable luxury unless the statute specifically excludes them. The later proviso excluding certain outside services was treated as an exclusionary amendment, not a mere clarification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority could invoke suo motu revision beyond the period within which reassessment could have been made under the Act. (ii) Whether services rendered outside the hotel premises and billed by the hotel were exigible to luxury tax under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority could invoke suo motu revision beyond the period within which reassessment could have been made under the Act.

Analysis: Section 8(1) conferred suo motu revisional power without prescribing a separate period of limitation, but the reassessment itself had to be made within the time permitted by section 6(5). Applying the earlier binding view that the revisional power cannot be used to direct what the assessing authority is no longer competent to do after the statutory period expires, the Court held that the revisional action initiated after expiry of the five-year period was impermissible.

Conclusion: The revisional proceedings were barred by limitation and the challenge succeeded.

Issue (ii): Whether services rendered outside the hotel premises and billed by the hotel were exigible to luxury tax under the Act.

Analysis: The definitions of "luxury" and "luxury provided in a hotel" and the charging provision were read together to hold that the levy was not confined to amenities physically inside the hotel building. Services such as vehicle hire, boat hire, trekking and sightseeing, when arranged and billed by the hotel for its customers, formed part of the luxury provided by the hotel. The subsequent proviso excluding specified charges for services rendered outside the hotel premises was treated as an exclusionary amendment and not as a mere clarification.

Conclusion: Such outside services, when billed by the hotel, were held taxable under the Act.

Final Conclusion: The judgment granted relief on the limitation issue, but upheld the levy on outside services, resulting in one appeal being allowed and the connected appeal being dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment under a fiscal statute is time-barred, suo motu revisional power cannot be used to circumvent that limitation; and a hotel's taxable luxury includes services billed by it to customers even if rendered outside the hotel premises, unless specifically excluded by the statute.

---