CHOITHRAM CHARITABLE TRUST, CHOITHRAM HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE CAMPUS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Choithram Charitable Trust has challenged the order dated 12.07.2005 passed by respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore in Revision Case No.024/Revision/2005, Luxury Tax, confirming the levy of tax under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Hotel Tatha Vas Grahon Mein Vilas Vastuon Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1988 (Hereinafter called 'The Luxury Tax Act' for whereas according to the petitioner being a brevity), charitable trust it is immune from levy of tax since it is not covered under the charging section of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Charitable trust with philanthropic objects as set out in the trust deed dated 29.12.1970 and it is duly registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act. The present petitioner has challenged the assessment and levy of the tax under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, first by the respondent No.1/The Commercial Tax Officer, Circle 15, Indore and then by The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax Division I, Indore, in revision passed by impugned order dated 12.07.2005 confirming the assessment and levy of the tax under the provisions of Luxury Tax Act, 1988.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents/State has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the facility provided by the petitioner i.e. providing accommodation of the attendants and relatives of the patients who were admitted to the petitioner's hospital generally opt the receipt and creating memo of the Dharamshala mentions the rent per day and the receipt duly filed as Annexure R/1 correctly indicate that the petitioner was charging Rs.65/ per day and Rs.150/ per day for their accommodation and various categories of rooms of different rates were available in the petitioner's hospital and thus under Section 2(e) of the Act, the facility provided was covered under this definition, moreover the balance sheet of amount under the head of Dharamshala where the Annexure R/2 the balance sheet indicates that they were making profit and definition of hospital indicates residential accommodation renting house and inn etc., which would come within the four corners of the definition of hotel and such type of different rate levied as rent would be a business within the meaning of the Act. And hence the statement made by the Counsel for the petitioner was not absolutely correct and it could not be said that the facility was being provided on a 'no profit no loss basis'. Counsel prayed that both the orders impugned in the petition are in accordance with law and no ground for interference is made out and he prayed that the petition be dismissed.