2016 (7) TMI 75 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Status of assessee - whether it is hospital as defined in Section 2(d)(e) or a hotel as defined in Section 2(e) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 - Held that - The term hotel has defined in Section 2(e) of the Act - It was in the light of the aforesaid definition of the term hotel that the case of the petitioner was appreciated by this Court in the judgment in Kairali Ayurvedic Health Resort Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (2) TMI 776 - KERALA HIGH COURT In that judgment, this Court has made reference to the order of the Tribunal impugned therein, wherein the facilities provided by the petitioner have been noticed. The correctness of these factual findings or the existence of the facilities noted in the judgment are not disputed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, obvious that that the predominant activity that is carried on in the establishment is not running of an ayurvidic care centre to call it as a hospital as defined in Section 2(d)(e) of the Act and on the other hand, this is a case where an ayurvedic centre is also functioning in the hotel of the petitioner. If that be so, the factual finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner s establishment is a hotel as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act cannot be said to be erroneous for any reason. - Decided against the petitioners.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning order passed by Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding assessment under Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an ayurvedic health resort, challenged the order treating it as a hotel instead of a hospital under the Act.
2. The petitioner contended that amendments to the Act post-2008 rendered the previous judgment irrelevant.
3. The Tribunal found the establishment to offer hotel-like amenities and services, concluding it as a hotel.
4. The Tribunal noted the majority of guests visited for leisure, not treatment, based on registration cards.
5. The Tribunal highlighted the fixed tariffs, lack of doctor involvement in treatment selection, and commission offers as non-hospital practices.
6. The Tribunal observed the establishment's descriptions, programs, and billing practices align more with a hotel than a hospital.
7. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing the establishment's hotel-like features and activities, dismissing the petitions.

This detailed analysis covers the petitioner's contentions, Tribunal's observations, and the Court's final decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.