Broad luxury tax coverage under Kerala law extends to club facilities, halls, auditoriums and kalyanamandapams let for consideration.

The Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 was construed broadly so that the definition of "hotel" extends beyond the ordinary meaning and covers any building where residential accommodation is provided by way of business for monetary consideration. On that reading, the charging provision applies to luxury provided in rooms as well as halls, auditoriums and kalyanamandapams let out for consideration, together with the associated amenities and services. The levy on club membership under Section 4(2A) was treated as distinct from the levy under Section 4(1), and both were held traceable to Entry 62 of List II. The absence of an express reference to clubs in the definition provisions did not exclude them from tax liability.

---

---

Issues: Whether luxury tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 could be levied on a club in respect of rooms, halls, auditorium or kalyanamandapam let out for consideration, and whether the levy under the membership-based provision was confined to a separate charge.

Analysis: The definition of "hotel" under Section 2(e) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 was held to be of wide amplitude and not confined to the common parlance meaning of a hotel. It includes any building where residential accommodation is provided by way of business for monetary consideration, and the charging provision in Section 4 was read as levying tax on the luxury provided in such premises. The statutory scheme showed that the tax was attracted not merely by lodging rooms, but also by halls, auditoriums and kalyanamandapams, together with the amenities and services provided therein. The court also held that the levy under Section 4(2A) on club membership was distinct from the levy under Section 4(1), and both were traceable to Entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The argument that the absence of an express reference to clubs in the definition provisions excluded them from the charging section was rejected in view of the breadth of the charging language and the statutory definitions.

Conclusion: The club was liable to luxury tax under Section 4 of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 on rooms and other specified facilities let out for consideration, and the challenge to the levy failed.

---