Judgment : R.B. Misra, J. - 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order as made below:- (a) That the rooms let out by the petitioner against the annual lease agreement(s) be declared as not part of the hotel so as to attract the provisions of "The Act" in question and the petitioner has no liability to pay the tax there under; and consequently quash and set aside the order passed vide Annexure P-10 dated 17.7.2007. (b) That the rooms let out on annual lease rent agreement(s) be declared as falling beyond the definition of "hotel" and "luxuries provided in the Hotel" so as to fall within the ambit of Section 4, the charging section for the levy of tax under "The Act" in the absence of any charge being made on day to day basis as prescribed under the Act. And consequently quash the order passed vide Annexure P-10, dated 17.7.207. (c) That the Agreement(s) of five rooms, in question, between the petitioner and the three Banks do not come within the definition of hotel so as to attract the provisions of the Act for the levy of tax. (d) To issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents not to charge Luxury Tax under the provision of the Act which has been so let out on annual basis and has only single occupancy through out and as the accommodation not run as a Hotel". 2. The petitioner is running a hotel in the name and style of M/s Hotel New Kenilworth International at Manali and is registered with the Department of Tourism, Himachal Pradesh vide registration N. 3-6/94-MNL-TD-1193 under Section 16/17 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Tourist Trade Act, 1988. The petitioner had executed a lease deed on 21.5.201 with Punjab National Bank for letting out room Nos. 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507 (VIP Set), 508, 509 and 510 (VIP Set) at an agreed lease amount of Rs.4,80,000/- per annum for using part of the hotel as guest house for its employees. The assessment orders for the years, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 were passed by the Assessing Authority, Kullu on 30.11.2006, imposing tax etc. 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507 (VIP Set), 508, 509 and 510 (VIP Set) at an agreed lease amount of Rs.4,80,000/- per annum for using part of the hotel as guest house for its employees. The assessment orders for the years, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 were passed by the Assessing Authority, Kullu on 30.11.2006, imposing tax etc. as under:- In addition Assessing Authority imposed penalty under Section 6(5) and 6(6) of H.P. Tax on Luxuries (In Hotels and Lodging Houses, Act 1979 (in short called 'Act'), beside levying interest under Section 7(b) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Mandi, which were dismissed vide order dated 17.7.2007 (Annexure P-10), the impugned order under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the case along with CWP No. 1233 of 2005 (M/s Preet Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assessing Authority-cum-Luxury Tax Officer & others). 4. Learned counsel for the respondents also made similar arguments as have been made in CWP No. 1233 of 2005. It has specifically been argued on behalf of the State that the ig 'Act' provides for levy and collection of tax on luxuries provided in hotels and lodging houses and is covered by Entry 62 of List-II of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. In addition, it has been argued that the petitioner has provided all lodging in the rooms with all facilities as ordinarily exists in a hotel like beds, bed rolls, sheets, intercom, TV, carpets, bathrooms etc. Even the expenses for consumables like water and electricity were to be paid by the hotel owner/petitioner. The facilities provided by the petitioner/hotel owner clearly fall within the ambit of the definition of "luxury provided in a Hotel" as defined in the 'Act' and accommodation for residence provided in a hotel, rate of charges for which exceeds the minimum limit of Rs.50/- per day per person. It was the petitioner/hotel owner, who de facto managed the affairs of above said rooms in question and provided luxury to the persons who were sponsored by the Bank employees for staying in these rooms. We have dealt CWP No. 1233 of 2005 in detail and adhering same reasons, analysis and observations made therein, in our considered view, there is no merit also in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.