2011 (4) TMI 1232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to pay Rs. 36,035 towards luxury tax, Rs. 36,035 towards fine and Rs. 4,000 for compounding the offence, totalling to Rs. 76,070 as well as the order dated January 1, 2000 passed by the second respondent, that is, the Deputy Commissioner (Tax on Luxuries), State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar. The petitioner, a private limited company, is running a hotel popularly known as "Hotel Panchsheel" at Baroda. By a show-cause notice dated August 27, 1999 issued by the second respondent, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why tax to the tune of Rs. 86,484 should not be recovered for the grounds (in all eight in number), stated in the said showcause notice. In response to the show-cause notice, the petitioner filed its reply dealing with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd had recov ered the tariff at a higher rate and that tax had accordingly been paid on the said amount. The second respondent held that as per rule 2 of the Rules, in case there was any increase or decrease in the tariff, it was necessary to inform the concerned officer. That the management of the hotel had, in relation to ground No. 5, charged lower rate of tariff and tried to conceal tax and that in respect of the present ground, tariff had been charged at a higher rate than allowed under form No. 2 and as such, had tried to evade payment of tax. That it was only upon the discrepancy being noticed that they had paid tax on the amount of tariff shown in the bill. He, therefore, did not accept the explanation of the petitioner. In relation....