such luxury is provided by a proprietor of the hotel to another person for the latter's enjoyment. In that sense, therefore, it is only in cases where the hotel is actually providing the Ayurvedic treatment service or the Beauty Parlour service directly to a customer, without the intervention of an independent entity, and raising invoices directly to the said customers, that the service/luxury could be seen as provided by the hotel. HE points out that in the instant case, as rightly found by the Appellate Tribunal, the service/amenity in question was provided by independent third persons, who were invoicing their customers directly for the services rendered by them, although in some instances the customers made the payment for the said services, against the invoices so raised, through the asessee hotel at the time of settlement of their bills with the hotel. He points out that the mere collection by the assessee hotel, of the amounts due to the independent service providers, could not entail a tax liability on the assessee hotel when the taxable event under the Act was the provision of service by the independent third persons. As regards the liability to tax on the amounts received for the use of the Convention Centres, it is his submission that the amendment to Section 4(2)(c) of the Act having been introduced only with
