PANKAJ L. KOTHARI Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions arise in all these writ petitions, they have been clubbed and heard together and are disposed of by this common order. These writ petitions assail the assessment orders of the tax periods 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 and notices of demand issued based on those orders for the aforesaid years by the 1st respondent-authority.

(2.) The facts in brief in all these case are as follows:

(3.) The main contention of all these petitioners is that the structures put up by them are temporary structures and hence, they do not come within the scope of definition of 'marriage hall' under the Act. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any luxury tax under Section 3-C of the Act which deals with levy and collection of tax on charges for marriage hall. It is only those halls which are in a building or part of a building, which come within the scope of the definition is the contention of the petitioners. According to these petitioners they are not rendering their services in any building or part of a building, therefore, they are not liable to pay any charges for the marriage hall. When the assessment orders were made for the period 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 and consequently demand notices were issued, the same were assailed in various writ petitions filed by the petitioners and those writ petitions were allowed and the matters were remitted to the Competent Authority for reconsideration of the issues raised by the petitioners essentially with regard to the applicability of the Act in question. On remand, the Assessing Authority has once again passed the impugned assessment orders stating that the petitioners are liable to pay tax under the Act. Consequently, demand notices have been issued against the petitioners demanding the requisite tax under the Act. The assessment orders as well as the demand notices are thus assailed in these writ petitions.