ORDER
V.K. Singhal, J.
1. Validity of Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 along with the Explanation to the definition of “charges for marriage halls” in Section 2(1-A) have been assailed in these writ petitions.
Section 3C reads as under :
“Levy and collection of tax on charges for marriage hall.–Subject to the provisions of this Act, where charges for luxury provided in a marriage hall are not less than five thousand rupees per day there shall be levied and collected a tax on such charges at the following rates namely :–
(a) Where charges for marriage hall per day are not less than five thousand rupees but 5 per cent of such less than ten thousand rupees charges. (b) Where charges for marriage hall per day are not less than ten thousand rupees but 10 per cent of such less than twenty thousand rupees charges. (c) Where charges for marriage hall per day 15 per cent of such are twenty thousand rupees and above. charges. Provided that where charges for marriage hall are payable otherwise than on daily basis, then for the purposes of determining the tax liability under this section, the charges shall be computed as for a day, based on the period of occupancy for which the charges are payable." The definition of "charges for marriage hall" under Section 2(1-A) are as under : " 'Charges for marriage hall' include charges for air-conditioning, chairs, utensils and vessels, shamiana, electricity, water, fuel, interior or exterior decoration and the like but do not include any charges for food and drinks."
2. Section 3C which is the charging section provides for the levy of tax on “charges for a marriage hall”. The definition of “luxury provided in a marriage hall” is not given in the Act though the definition of “luxury provided in a hotel” under Section 2(5) is there which is in accordance with the charging Section 3. Separate charge is made for levy of tax on “charges of marriage halls”. It is submitted that the “Kalyan Mantap” cannot be considered to provide any “luxury” and they are discharging their basic function as any religious institution does in accordance with the customs prevailing in the communities which is a necessity and not a luxury. It is further submitted that there is no basis of levy of tax where the charges are not less than Rs. 5,000 per day. A contention was also raised that entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution provides taxes on luxuries including taxes on entertainment, amusement, betting and gambling. The basic character of luxury cannot be changed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn my attention to the “service tax” levied by the Finance Act, 1994 which has created the charge on taxable services under Section 68 and “taxable services” have been defined under Section 65(41), Clause (p) which refers to providing a service to a client by a mantap owner keeping in relation to the use of mantap in any manner including the facilities provided to the client in relations to such use, and also the services rendered as a caterer. It is submitted that since the act of letting out marriage halls is considered to be a service, the State Legislature has no jurisdiction or authority to levy tax on marriage halls particularly mantaps treating their activity as luxury. In accordance with entry 97 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, read with Article 248 of the Constitution all the enactments which the Parliament has made would prevail over the local Act “and its charging section which has created the liability of collection of tax on charges for marriage hall treating it to be a luxury.
3. It is further submitted that the definition clause “charges for marriage hall” in Section 2(1-A) includes the charges for electricity, water, fuel, and excludes the charges for food and drinks. It is submitted that since the food and drinks have been excluded then the items required for the preparation of food and drinks namely, electricity, water, fuel cannot be included and the Explanation to Section 2(1-A) only makes it clear that the Act is not clear on the point and therefore the matter has to be referred to the State Government for its decision which is considered to be final.
4. The charges collected towards the facilities for chairs, utensils, vessels, shamiana, etc., are only to reimburse the expenses as they require frequent repair and replacing and are the items of necessity and not luxury. The analogy of levy of tax on hotels and lodging houses cannot be extended to mantaps. Number of the facilities like cups, plates etc., depend on the number of persons attending the marriage and therefore fixing the amount of Rs. 5,000 has no rational. Functions like birthday, meetings of the companies etc., are not included in the charging provision and the marriage cannot be considered differently than other functions. Reliance is placed on the decision given in the case of Express Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1994] 74 STC 157 (SC) where after taking into consideration the dictionary meaning of the word “luxury” it was observed that the connotation of the word “luxury” is something which conduces enjoyment over and above the necessaries of life.
5. I have considered over the matter.
6. The definition of “luxury provided in a hotel” given under Section 2(e) of the Gujarat Act is similar to the definition given under Section 2(5) of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979. Various contentions were raised in the case of Express Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 74 STC 157 (SC). While examining the scope of entry 62 it was observed by the apex Court that the tax levied under entry 62 cannot be restricted to certain articles only, the legislative intent has to be given the widest liberal meaning of the connotation. The fact that the use of the article is popular among the poor sections of the population would not detract from its description or nature of being an article of luxury. In view of this judgment of the apex Court, the provisions of charging Section 3C providing for levy and collection of tax for marriage halls cannot be considered ultra vires the jurisdiction of the State Legislature as providing the facility of performing the marriage in a marriage hall or mantap is considered to be a luxury. Though time has changed and because of lack of space it would not be possible for every one to perform the marriage at the place of residence, it cannot be denied that certain section of the society is performing the marriage at their residence only.
7. Charging section has taken care that if the charges are less than Rs. 5,000 per day, then no tax can be levied. It is a reasonable basis for classifying. The marriage halls or mantaps which are charging less than Rs. 5,000 per day are not coming within the purview of the charging section. If the charges are not paid on the basis of per day then the period of occupancy and the total charges are to be taken into consideration in order to fix the tax liability in accordance with the charging section. The contention that the fixation of Rs. 5,000 per day has also no substance (sic).
8. A contention is raised that the luxuries under Section 2(4-B) are the commodities or service specified in the Schedule and since no such specification is made in the Schedule the charging section is not operative. This contention has also no force because the operation of the charging section cannot be restricted by the definition clause. The charging section creates the charge on the luxury provided in a marriage hall and is not restricted to the luxuries only in respect of commodities or services for which the other section has taken care. The “charges for luxury” provided in a marriage hall have been subjected to tax in accordance with the charges made subject to the minimum limit of Rs. 5,000 per day.
9. Another contention raised is that the charges for marriage hall includes the charges for electricity, water and fuel which are needed for preparation of food and drinks and when the charges for food and drinks have been excluded from the total charges, electricity, water and fuel cannot be subjected to tax. So far as this contention is concerned, the levy of tax under Section 3 is on the “charges provided in a marriage hall”. The section has contemplated the charge on per day basis. The definition of “charges for marriage hall” has provided to include certain charges so that the charges which are collected are not bifurcated in such a manner so as to escape the liability which has been created by the charging section. Normally charges for various items mentioned in the definition Clause 2(1-A) may not include the charge for water which has been supplied by the Municipal Corporation. But if the water is brought from outside on which certain charges are paid by the marriage hall owners then they are entitled for reimbursement. The question as to whether such a charge could be a charge for drink is a point which could be adjudicated in accordance with the explanation to Section 2(1-A) by the Government. Other charges which are specifically specified are not having any ambiguity. It may be in the word “and the like” certain charges are included in the charges for marriage hall. But in respect of explanation to Section 2(1-A) there is no illegality in conferring such a power.
10. A contention is further raised that definition of “charges for luxury provided in a marriage hall” has not been defined as with reference to Section 3 the luxury provided in a hotel is defined under Section 2(5). This contention has no force because the charge is created by the section itself, i.e., on the basis of the total collection made as “charge for marriage hall” per day. It was not necessary that there should have been a definition of “luxury provided in a marriage hall”.
11. In view of the above, I do not consider that any case for interference is made out.
12. Petitions are dismissed.