State of Karnataka and Others vs Smt. Narasamma and K. Puttaswamaiah Kalyana Mantapa

N. Kumar, J.—These revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee for the years 2000-2001 to 2005-2006. The assessee is running a marriage hall, letting out the Kalyana Mantapa for conducting the marriages and others functions. The marriage hall was let out for performing the marriage and other functions on hire charges at Rs. 2,500/- per day per function for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002; Rs. 3,000/- per day per function for the year 2002-2003; Rs. 5,500/- per day per function for the year 2003-2004; Rs. 6,000/- per day per function for the year 2004-2005 and Rs. 6,500/- per day per function for the year 2005-2006. The Assessing Authority has determined the turnover liable to luxury tax by multiplying the admitted hire charges with the number of functions held and thereafter levied tax and also penalty. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed. Therefore, he preferred a second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that "per day" has to be understood in the context of a marriage hall, normally the persons, who take the marriage hall, would take it for 24 hours and the 24 hours is to be calculated from the evening till next evening, though the marriage is spread over for two days, which has to be considered as one day and therefore, if the rent calculated is spread over for two days, they are not liable to pay luxury tax at all and therefore, the Tribunal held that it has to be considered as "per day per function" and granted relief to the assessee.

Learned Government Advocate submits that if the marriage is spread over for two days, even if it is held that the entire marriage is performed within 24 hours, it is to be taken as two days and the rent payable is to be multiplied by ''2'' and it cannot be divided by ''2''. We find it very difficult to accept said argument. The marriage hall is taken for performing one marriage. That marriage normally spreads over for two days. Therefore, it could be taken as 24 hours. Merely because the marriage is spread over for two days, if it is completed within 24 hours, the rent is to be divided by ''2'' and not multiplied by ''2''. If it is to be divided by ''2'', there is no tax liability. That is what precisely the Tribunal has held. We do not see any justification to interfere with the said order passed.

We find no merit in these revision petitions. Accordingly, they are dismissed.