Luxury tax on a houseboat upheld where prior payment and identity were unproved, and limitation did not help an unregistered operator.

Luxury tax on a houseboat was challenged on the ground that tax had already been paid at another place, but the challenge failed because the petitioner could not prove that the assessed boat was the same vessel covered by the earlier permission; a later lease deed, without reliable supporting material, was treated as self-serving. The limitation objection also failed because the houseboat had not been registered and returns had not been filed under the Act, so the ordinary limitation period was held inapplicable to a person who had operated the vessel clandestinely to avoid tax. The tax demand was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of luxury tax for the houseboat was invalid on the ground that tax had already been paid at Kottayam in respect of the same boat. (ii) Whether the assessment order was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of luxury tax for the houseboat was invalid on the ground that tax had already been paid at Kottayam in respect of the same boat.

Analysis: The petitioner had to establish that the houseboat covered by the impugned order was the very same boat for which permission to pay tax at Kottayam had been obtained. No reliable material was produced to show identity of the boats. The lease deed was later in point of time than the permission to pay tax and, in the absence of supporting evidence, the document was treated as self-serving.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed and the tax demand was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The plea of limitation was rejected because the petitioner had not registered the houseboat or filed returns in accordance with the Act. The limitation provision was held to be inapplicable to a person who had clandestinely operated the houseboat without registration to avoid tax.

Conclusion: The assessment was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in its entirety and the impugned tax demand was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who operates a taxable vehicle or vessel without registration and without filing returns cannot invoke the ordinary limitation period to defeat an assessment made under the taxing statute, and a challenge based on prior tax payment fails unless identity of the subject matter is proved by reliable evidence.

---