Allowed

M/s.Adyar Gate Hotal Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC4 Mar 2021WP/20871/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging levy of luxury tax on Internet charges and excessive tax on tariff revision under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries Act. Court upheld a petition declaration that ineligble addition was wrong and modified assessment order was erroneous due to lack of proper penalty base. Petitioner succeeded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessments set aside, added tax on Internet charges deleted, and excessive tax on tariff revision remitted. Penalty levy direction quashed. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/s.Adyar Gate Hotal Ltd. Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

and M.P. No. 1 of 2014

¶6

M/s.Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd.,

¶7

Represented by its Managing Director, 132, T.T.K.Road,

¶8

Chennai – 600 018.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Mandaveli Assessment Circle, Chennai. ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in TNLTH No.0196/2007-08 and quash the order dated 14.07.2014.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Sudakar

¶13

For Respondent : Ms.G.Dhanamadhri

¶14

Government Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 14.07.2014 seeking to levy of luxury tax on internet charges and tax on ineligible revision of tariff under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries Act, 1981. Similarly, the dispute came up for the succeeding financial years as well i.e., the Assessment Years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 in W.P.Nos.21206 & 21207 of 2014.

¶17

By an order dated 01.11.2019, the demand was set aside with the following observations:-

¶18

“4. The petitioners' case is that the Internet connection has been provided via telephone that stands specifically excluded from the ambit of 'luxury', as per the definition above. I agree. Moreover, Internet facility can hardly be considered as a luxury and has come to be regarded as a basic

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

necessity, equatable to telephone facility. This addition is deleted.

¶21

The second addition is made in terms of Section 4-A of the Act. Section 4-A is extracted below:

¶22

'4-A. Intimation of revised rate to the Assessing Authority.-

¶23

Where any proprietor intends to revise any rate of charge for any luxury provided in a hotel, he shall intimate in writing to the assessing authority seven days prior to the date of giving effect to such revised rates. The proprietor shall be liable to pay tax at the revised rate after the expiry of seven days from the date of receipt of such intimation by the assessing authority.'

¶24

In the present case, admittedly the petitioner has put into operation the revised rates within a period of 7 days and prior to intimation of the revision to the Department. This is not called into dispute by Mr.Haribabu, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. Tax has thus been remitted by the petitioner on the revised, enhanced rates. Thus, there can be no prejudice caused to the Department, since it has, in fact received the tax on the enhanced rates as per the timelines stipulated in Section 4-A above though intimation of the revision was belated. This ground is allowed and the modification deleted.

¶25

7.Coming to the aspect of penalty, the provisions of Section 8(d) of the Luxury Tax Act, if at all, would be applicable in the present case. However, the Assessing Authority has levied penalty in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act which is patently incorrect. That apart, since the additions on merits have been set aside, there can be no question of levy of penalty. In fine, the impugned assessments are set aside and the writ petitions allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

The learned counsel for the respondent/Commercial Tax Department submits that this order was passed on 01.11.2019 and has not appealed against. Considering the same, this Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of the above order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VII)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
arb
To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Mandaveli Assessment Circle,
Chennai.
+1 cc to Specail Government Pleader(Taxes) sr14353
W.P. No. 20871 of 2014
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2014
srII(co)
aa19/03/2021

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Adyar Gate Hotal Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Adyar Gate Hotal Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Singh Agarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Sujana Towers Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/s.Winndsor Cotton Mills (P) Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/S. United Spirits Ltd., Vs the Deputy Commissioner(Ct)-I

K.Jagadeesan Vs The Commissioner

M/s Sriram Educational Trust Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax