TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 890
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal filed by the petitioner-society under section 9 of the Act, arising from the order passed by the first appellate authority dated March 12, 2007, came to be dismissed. The first appellate authority had partly allowed the appeal filed against the order of assessment dated December 28, 2006, under section 6(1) of the Act read with rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Rules, 1979 (for short, "the Rules") passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Transition) (for short, "Luxury Tax Officer"). The relevant assessment year that we are concerned in the present revision is 2004-05. The petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961. The only asset of the society is Kalyana Mantapa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m in response to the notice, in brief, is as under:- 1. The taxable collection is at Rs. 3,90,000 and rest Rs. 33,561 are non-taxable. 2. Current charges collected over and above 3. Rental and spent for that purpose. 4. Sree Veerashiva Kshemabivrudi Nidhi fund collection voluntarily. 5. Rs. 27,500 collected exclusive as a contribution for community welfare fund and donation is again independent voluntarily payment. On the basis of materials placed on record, the Luxury Tax Officer, vide order dated December 28, 2006, rejected the claim of the petitioner-society as not tenable and concluded the assessment as under: Total room r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the luxury of a marriage hall read with section 2(1A) of the KTL Act, 1979, the Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner was liable to pay tax under section 3C on voluntary contributions by members towards corpus of the society, collection of rent for certain functions which was below the taxable minimum of Rs. 5,000 and collection towards electricity charges at actual?" At the outset, we observe that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not advance any submissions insofar as the collection towards electricity charges is concerned. The only contention urged by Mr. Thirumalesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the authorities below have committed gross error of law in holding that the voluntary con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant provisions contained in sections 2(1A) and 3C of the Act, to the extent it is necessary, which read thus:- "(1A) 'Charges for marriage hall' include charges for air-conditioning, chairs, utensils and vessels, shamiana, electricity, water, fuel, interior or exterior decoration or any amount received by way of donation or charity or by whatever name called in relation to letting out the marriage hall but do not include any charges for food and drinks ; 3C. Levy and collection of tax on charges for marriage hall.- Subject to the provisions of this Act, where charges for luxury provided in a marriage hall are not less than five thousand rupees per day there shall be levied and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s court. On the other hand, it is clear from the record and on verification of books of accounts that the donors/the persons who booked and used the marriage hall were the same. It appears from the record that they paid donations after using the marriage hall instead of paying it before. Merely because it was shown by the petitioner-society that the donations were paid after use of the marriage hall, it cannot be stated that it was not in relation to letting it out. On the contrary, it is clear from the materials on record and as observed by the Luxury Tax Officer that the donors had not paid voluntarily but had paid for using the marriage hall. It has also come on record that the petitioner-society in some cases collected booking charges a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id to the proprietor of the marriage hall. Section 4AA was inserted by Act No. 5/2001 with effect from April 1, 2001. Insertion of this section in the Act has changed the complexion of section 3C of the Act. Under that provision, as it stood prior to April 1, 2001, no tax could be levied if the charges were less than Rs. 5,000 per day. In other words, the marriage halls which were charging less than Rs. 5,000 per day were not coming within the purview of the charging section. To overcome the mischief, the Legislature seems to have introduced section 4AA in the Act with effect from April 1, 2001. Sub-section (2) of section 4AA empowered the authorities to levy and collect the tax on the luxury provided in a marriage hall to any person who....