ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—The learned single judge by order dated October 20, 2005 referred this petition to the Division Bench on the premise that it involves a question of validity of the charging section, since a Division Bench of this court upheld the constitutional validity of the charging section in Magaji Mhavarsa Kamakshi Bai Kalyana Soudha Samudaya Bhavan, Nanjangud vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore, (2006) 146 STC 473 (Karn) : (2003) 54 KLJ 208 while the later decision of the apex court in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2005) 139 STC 537 (SC) redefined the scope of the term "luxury" by interpreting item 62, List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India. According to the learned single judge though the Division Bench examined the validity of section 3C of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979, for short, "the Act", and interpreted the section to mean the charge provided in a marriage hall as in section 3C, is actually on charges for luxury provided, nevertheless there was a need to consider the description of charge for application of the provision to any entity in the light of the decision in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, JT (2005) 5 SC 587. 2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are : The petitioner was granted a charter of incorporation by a Royal Charter in the year 1935 having its head office at Gokhale Road, Calcutta, established to promote advancement of engineering science, exchange of information, spreading of technical education, educating the masses, etc., while the Karnataka State Centre was established under section 3 of the Royal Charter with the avowed objects relating to education, spreading scientific knowledge, publication of papers and articles and awarding prizes, etc. According to the petitioner, in order to meet the expenses for managing the institution, portions of the building, namely, (i) M. Vish-weshwaraiah Auditorium and (ii) Conference hall, are let out for exhibition of books, engineering goods, seminars, board meeting, conferences, etc., without providing facilities such as furniture, electricity, decoration, etc., and disallowing cooking, feeding or refreshment inside the building, while rent paid is for the space covered by four walls. 3. The petitioner when visited with notices from the Commercial Tax Officer filed its replies. 3. The petitioner when visited with notices from the Commercial Tax Officer filed its replies. However when the Commercial Tax Officer, by endorsement dated December 14, 2001 threatened to initiate prosecution unless the petitioner gets itself registered under section 4A(1) of the Act, has resulted in this petition for the following reliefs : (a) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorarie quashing the final endorsement dated December 14, 2001 bearing No. ACCT/ LT-I/2001-2 made by respondent 2 as per annexure E; (b) A writ, order or direction declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay luxury tax for giving on hire M. Vishweshwaraiah Auditorium and conference hall in the premises of the petitioner; (c) A writ, order or direction declaring that amendment of section 5(5B) by Act 4 of 1999 is void on the ground of colourable exercise of the power of Legislature insofar as it includes seminar, convention, banquets and meetings; (d) Any other writ, order or direction as deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The petition is opposed by filing statement of objections dated January 30, 2002, inter alia, contending that the halls let out to the public for valuable consideration for conducting seminars and other functions including exhibition-cum-sale fall within the definition "marriage hall" under section 2(5B) of the Act and hence liable to luxury tax under section 3C of the Act. Thus it is contended that the notice requiring the petitioner to register itself under the Act is legal and valid. The respondents have filed additional statement of objections dated July 26, 2009, inter alia, reiterating the averments set out in the statement of objections, in addition contending that seminar halls, conference halls are included in the definition of the term "marriage hall" under section 2(5B) and in the light of Magaji Mhavarsa Kamakshi Bai Kalyana Soudha Samudaya Bhavan, Nanjangud, (2006) 146 STC 473 (Karn) : (2003) 54 KLJ 208 are liable to tax on luxuries. It is further stated that the apex court in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. and Another Vs. It is further stated that the apex court in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, JT (2005) 5 SC 587 has affirmed the levy of luxury tax on services while dissenting only from taxation on goods and articles and as the petitioner provides on rent the auditorium and conference hall in a centrally located area, convenient for participants and visitors, cannot but be a luxury. 5. In almost identical though not similar circumstances, this court in Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers' Association vs. State of Karnataka, (2011) 42 VST 388 (Karn) (W.P. Nos. 27454-56 of 2009 dated January 22, 2011), having regard to the definition of the terms "marriage hall" in section 2(5B) of the Act, held that a building or part thereto where accommodation is provided for marriage, reception or matters related therewith, would alone be chargeable to luxury tax under section 3C of the Act. 6. In the factual matrix noticed supra, there being no dispute that building having portions, viz., Sir M. Visweshwaraiah Auditorium and conference hall, belonging to the petitioner, conceived for use to public more appropriately, holding exhibition of books, engineering goods, seminars, workshops, board meetings, conferences, etc., not providing facilities such as furniture, electricity, decoration, etc., and not permitting cooking, feeding or refreshment therein, is not a building where accommodation or services is provided for marriage, or reception or matters therewith and hence does not fall within the definition of the term "marriage hall" under section 2(5B) chargeable to luxury tax under section 3C of the Act. 7. As a consequence, the endorsement impugned calling upon the petitioner to register itself under the Act is unjust and illegal. 8. Following the very same decision in Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers' Association vs. State of Karnataka, (2011) 42 VST 388 (Karn) (W.P. Nos. 27454-56 of 2009 dated January 22, 2011), in this case too we defer the consideration of the question as to whether the letting out of a building falling within the definition of the terms "marriage hall" in section 2(5B), is a "luxury" meaning services ministering to enjoyment, comfort or pleasure extraordinary to necessities of life, under section 2(4B), attracting the impost under section 3C of the Act. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated by the respondents culminating in the endorsement, annexure E, impugned are quashed.