<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (1) TMI 606 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220502</link>
    <description>A luxury tax statute was construed broadly to cover cottages and rooms attached to a club where the charging provisions expressly taxed club-related accommodation and allied charges. The wide statutory meaning of &quot;hotel&quot;, together with the inclusion of guest houses and places of like nature, showed that conventional hotel business activity was not the controlling test. On that construction, accommodation provided by a club in cottages and rooms for residence fell within the taxable description, and separate proof that the letting activity was carried on as a business was not required. Luxury tax was therefore payable on the rent and other charges collected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193866" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 606 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220502</link>
      <description>A luxury tax statute was construed broadly to cover cottages and rooms attached to a club where the charging provisions expressly taxed club-related accommodation and allied charges. The wide statutory meaning of &quot;hotel&quot;, together with the inclusion of guest houses and places of like nature, showed that conventional hotel business activity was not the controlling test. On that construction, accommodation provided by a club in cottages and rooms for residence fell within the taxable description, and separate proof that the letting activity was carried on as a business was not required. Luxury tax was therefore payable on the rent and other charges collected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>