Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.72 seconds)
Delhi Gymkhana Club vs Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & ... on 17 November, 2023 cites

Asianet Satellite Communications ... vs State Of Kerala

[(2001) 4 SCC 60] in support of his contention that the incidence of luxury tax is on the enjoyment of luxury and not on the providing of luxury is also misplaced. The said decisions considered the issue of legislative competence of the respective legislatures while imposing the levy of luxury tax. It was in that context that the Supreme Court found that the levy of luxury tax was on the enjoyment of the luxury and hence, even if the incidence of tax was on the „turnover of stock of luxuries‟ or on the „admission of cars/motor vehicles inside the drive in theatre‟, as the case may be, in pith and substance, the levy of tax was on a luxury and therefore within the competence of the respective legislatures to levy, as Entry 62 of List II under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution authorised the levy of "Taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling". To the same effect is the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. v. State of Kerala - [(2010) 3 KLT (SN 22) 29] as also the judgments of the Supreme Court in Express Hotels and Purvi Communication [supra]. The observations of the court in the said judgments cannot have the effect of altering the taxable event under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, the charging provision of which is specific when it states that the levy of tax is on „luxury provided‟ meaning thereby that it is levied when the luxury is provided.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Calcutta Club Limited on 4 May, 2016

19. While learned counsel for the petitioner sought to draw sustenance from the principles of mutuality as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the State of West Bengal & Ors v. Calcutta Club Limited6 as also a recent decision of the Kerala High Court in Madhavaraja Club v. Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax) & Ors7, we find that those submissions are addressed oblivious of the statutory position of the Act as it prevailed prior to 2012. This aspect also clearly appears to have been overlooked by the Commissioner who has also rested his decision on the amended provisions of the Act. However, and bearing in mind the assessment years with which we are concerned, it is evident that it would be the Act as it stood prior to its amendment in 2012 which would be applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 51 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next