Kerala High Court
M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India ... vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 November, 2012
Author: V.Chitambaresh
Bench: V.Chitambaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
FRIDAY,THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 1984 of 2013 (W)
-------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
M/S MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAHINDRA TOWERS SECOND
FLOOR , 17/18, PATTULLOS ROAD, CHENNAI TAMILNADU 600 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY DR.ANIL KUMAR
BY ADVS. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.)
SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA
SRI.K.M.FIROZ
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.III
IDUKKI AT DEVIKULAM IDUKKI DISTRICT. 685 563
2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
(WORKS CONTRACT AND LUXURY TAX)
COMMERCIAL TAXES, KATTAPPANA
IDUKKI DISTRICT. 685 508.
3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA
IDUKKI DISTRICT. 685 508.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
5. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
R1 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR .SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY, TAXES
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 29-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 1984 of 2013 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 - COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 30-11-2012 WITH
DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P2 - COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 30-11-2012 WITH
DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P3 - OPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 30-11-2012 WITH
DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P4 - COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 9-12-2010
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P5 - COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, TAMILNADU,
MADRAS OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT-P6 - COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.31/2008 ISSUED BY THE
FOURTH RESPONDENT, COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL
TAXES
EXHIBIT-P7 - COPY OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS (TERMS AND
CONDITIONS) OF THE HOLIDAY PLAN SCHEME OFFERED BY
THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT-P8 - COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P9 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 09.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -
2009
EXHIBIT-P10 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 09.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-
2010
EXHIBIT-P11 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 09.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDNET
AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-
2011
CONTD....2....
.. 2 ..
EXHIBIT-P12 COPY OF THE OBJECTION LETTER DATED 30.01.2012
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT STATING THAT
ONLY 343, 467 AND 500 CUSTOMERS STAYED AT
CHINNAKKANAL RESORT DURING THE YEARS 2008-2009, 2009-
2010 AND 2010-2011 RESPECTIVELY
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
SB
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 1984 of 2013
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Exhibit P1, P2 and P3 orders imposing penalty under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act are impugned in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The number of members enjoying the facility has been reckoned as 109884 in Exhibits P1, P2 and P3 orders. The petitioner maintains that 109884 depicts the total number of members throughout the world as on 31.03.2010.
2. Who are the members who can exercise the first option to occupy the resort during the different periods of the year has to be ascertained? Or else who are the members who have actually occupied the resort during the relevant period has to be reckoned? The matter needs a re-look dependant on the data to be furnished by the petitioner in this regard for which I remand the matter to the W.P(C) No.1984 of 2013 2 original authority.
3. I set aside Exhibit P1, P2 and P3 orders. The 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders within a period of two months after due notice to the petitioner. All other contentions are left open.
Sd/-
(V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE.) // True Copy // P.A. To Judge DSV/-