K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner asserts himself to be a dealer in a hotel business. The hotel is registered as Sri laxmi Bhavan Tiffin Room and Coffee Works. In addition to the hotel business, he is also carrying on business in coffee powder and leco. The writ petition pertains to the year 1984-85. ( 2 ) THE petitioner sought the benefit of composition under section 17 (4) of the Karnataka Sales tax Act, 1957 ("the Act", for short ). The petitioner's application was rejected and ultimately an order of assessment came to be made. ( 3 ) THE short question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of section 17 (4) of the said Act and the said benefit could be confined to the turnover pertaining to the hotel business as sought for by the petitioner ? ( 4 ) SECTION 17 provides for composition of tax. As per sub-section (1), certain dealers are entitled to seek the benefit, other than a dealer liable to tax under section 5 (3) (a) or a dealer referred to in section 10 (2 ). By amendment, the explanation is applicable to a dealer, who is a hotelier or a restaurateur. The person who is entitled to seek the benefit under section 17 (1) shall have to apply to the prescribed authority or the assessing authority for permission to pay the amount prescribed under the said sub-section (1 ). However, his total turnover shall not exceed Rs. 5 lakhs for the year in question. In case, the dealer is permitted to pay the composition amount in lieu of the tax under the Act, he shall pay the amount due in advance during the year in monthly or prescribed instalments. However, he shall have to file, for the said purpose, returns in the prescribed manner. 5 lakhs for the year in question. In case, the dealer is permitted to pay the composition amount in lieu of the tax under the Act, he shall pay the amount due in advance during the year in monthly or prescribed instalments. However, he shall have to file, for the said purpose, returns in the prescribed manner. ( 5 ) SECTION 17 (4) which is invoked in the instant case reads thus : "17 (4) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) to (3), subject to such conditions and in such circumstances as may be prescribed, the assessing authority of the area may, if a hotelier or a restaurateur (other than a hotelier or a restaurateur engaged in reselling of goods purchased by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce) (or vending of liquor including beer) so elects, accept in lieu of the amount of tax payable by him, during any year, under this Act, by way of composition, an amount at the following rates, namely : "a hotelier or a restaurateur, coming within this provision may pay the composition amount at the rate which depends upon the total turnover stated in the Table annexed to this sub-section. For example, where the total turnover of the hotelier is not less than Rs. 1 lakh but less than Rs. 1 lakh fifty thousand, the composition will be at the rate of Rs. 3,000. Eleven slabs are given in this Table dividing the total turnovers. ( 6 ) IT is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner is a hotelier. He is also carrying on the business in coffee powder and leco; to the extent of tax payable by him in respect of the hotel business, he is entitled to invoke section 17 (4 ). According to the learned counsel, the total turnover referred in the "table" will be the total turnover relatable to the hotel business and if so construed, there is no difficulty in giving the benefit of sub-section (4) of section 17 to a hotelier. ( 7 ) THE argument is no doubt quite attractive and normally there is no reason as to why the business of a hotelier cannot be treated separately as against his other business. ( 7 ) THE argument is no doubt quite attractive and normally there is no reason as to why the business of a hotelier cannot be treated separately as against his other business. But the difficulty against accepting this plea is posed by the explanation which reads thus : "explanation : For the purposes of this section, 'total turnover' means, aggregate turnover in respect of all goods of a dealer at all places of business in the State, whether or not the whole or any portion of such turnover is liable to tax. " In other words, the total turnover of a hotelier would be confined to the turnover relatable to the hotel business only. If the hotelier is also engaged in any other business, the turnover relating to the said business also would be part of the total turnover for the purpose of section 17. If it is so read, it is clear that section 17 (4) cannot be applied to a dealer who has more than one business, in addition to the business of a hotelier. Sub-section (4) does not say that the assessing authority may accept in lieu of the amount of tax payable by a hotelier in respect of the hotel business. Sub-section (4) says that the composition may be accepted in lieu of the amount of tax payable by the hotelier. But if the hotelier is also engaged in any other kind of business, naturally the tax payable by him would include the tax payable in respect of the other business also. Further, it has to be noticed that when an individual carries on several businesses, the Act contemplates a single registration as a dealer. The Act does not provide for separate registration in respect of each variety of business. Under the circumstances, we are constrained to reject the contention of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to state that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the order by way of an appeal in case any other ground is available to him. In case, the appeal has not been filed so far, the petitioner is granted 4 weeks time from today to file an appeal and the appellate authority shall condone the delay in filing such an appeal. ( 8 ) WRIT petition dismissed.