9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al exhibitions of machine tools and conferences to promote trade and commerce are held from time to time. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the notices da ted 01/04/2012, 10/09/2013, 07/10/2013 and 21/10/2013 a t Annexures-D, G, K and N respectively, has filed this writ petitioner. The petitioner has contended that Bangalore International Exhibition Centre does not come within the scope of definition of "marriage hall" under the provisions of Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for the sake of brevity) and therefore, not chargeable to luxury tax. The validity of Section 3-C read with Section 2(5-B) of the said Ac t are also assailed as being ultra vires Entry 62 of List II of the VII Schedule of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He contended that the petitioner's facility comes within sub-clause ( ii) of sub- section (5-B) of Section 2 of the Act and that the endorsements, which have been issued by the competent authority are legal, just and proper, and the same would not call for any interference. He also stated that the amendment is in accordance with the Constitution of India and therefore, there is no merit in seeking a declaration that the said amendment is ultra vires Entry 62 of List II of the VII Schedule of the Constitution. 6. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, at the outset it is noted that what has been assailed in this writ petition is the endorsements which have been issued by the competent authority requesting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only having regard to the exemption notification da ted 27/11/2012 produced at Annexure-F. The petitioner has also filed its replies to the impugned notices. Those replies are filed only in the last week of October, 2013. Those replies are yet to be considered by the competent authority. 8. The other aspect of the matter is that the petitioner has contended, having regard to the definition of luxuries in sub-section (4-B) of Section 2 of the Act read with sub- section (1-B) of Section 2 of the Act, no charges could have been levied on the space rented by the petitioner to various parties for holding their exhibitions or exhibiting their goods. On this aspect of the matter, the petitioner states that additional reply would be filed highlig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
