Judgment The petitioner-society in the present revision under Section 11-A of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (for short “the Act”) has called in question the order dated 24-5-2010 made in STA No.350/2007 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby, an appeal filed by the petitioner-society under Section 9 of the Act, arising from the order passed by the first appellate authority dated 12-3-2007, came to be dismissed. The first appellate authority had partly allowed the appeal filed against the order of assessment dated 28-12-2006, under Section 6(1) of the Act read with Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Tax of Luxuries Rules, 1979 (for short “the Rules”) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Transition) (for short “Luxury Tax Officer”). The relevant assessment year that we are concerned in the present revision is 2004-2005. 2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961. The only asset of the Society is Kalyana Mantapa (marriage hall) which they let out for marriages and other functions on payment. The petitioner-society, is a registered proprietor/dealer under Section 4-A of the Act. They submitted annual returns under Section 5 for the year ending on 31-3-2005 followed by monthly returns on 7-7-2006 declaring the rent received of Rs.3,50,500/- and admitted tax liability of Rs.58,575/-. The Luxury Tax Officer, however, having found that the amount of tax paid was less than the amount payable, issued a notice to the petitioner-society. In response thereto, the petitioner on 7-7-2006 produced a ledger and bills for verification in support of the returns. On verification thereof, it was revealed that the petitioner had collected the following charges for providing luxuries: 01. Rent collected Rs.4,64,064=00 02. Current charges collected Rs.46,715=00 03. Mantap flower charges Rs.2,600=00 04. Amount collected Sree Veerashiva Kshemabivrudi Nidhi fund from 6 person Rs.27,500=00 05. Amount collected Sree Veerashiva Kshemabivrudi Nidhi fund from 6 person in the form of donation Rs.35,000=00 Total Rs.5,75,879=00 3. There does not appear to be any dispute that the above collections were made for providing marriage hall for functions on payment except the donations. The petitioner in response to the notice dated 20-11-2006, had filed their objection son 26-12-2006. They did not admit their liability to pay tax on the donations. Their claim in the response to the notice, in brief, is as under: "01. The taxable collection is at Rs.3,90,000=00 and rest Rs.33,561=00 are non-taxable. 02. The petitioner in response to the notice dated 20-11-2006, had filed their objection son 26-12-2006. They did not admit their liability to pay tax on the donations. Their claim in the response to the notice, in brief, is as under: "01. The taxable collection is at Rs.3,90,000=00 and rest Rs.33,561=00 are non-taxable. 02. Current charges collected over and 03. above rental and spent for that purpose. 04. Sree Veerashiva Kshemabivrudi Nidhi fund collection voluntarily. 05. Rs.27,500=00 collected exclusive as a contribution for community welfare fund and donation is again independent voluntarily payment. 4. On the basis of materials placed on record, the Luxury Tax Officer, vide order dated 28-12-2006, rejected the claim of the petitioner-society as not tenable and concluded the assessment as under: Total room rent determined Rs.5,75,879=00 Less: Exemptions Rs.NIL Taxable turnover Rent received Rs.5,75,879=00 Rs.5,75,879 @ 15% Rs.86,382=00 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Luxury Tax Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing No.KLT-AP-02/06-07. The appellate authority allowed the appeal partly to the extent of the penalty imposed under Section 7(d) of the Act. The operative portion of the order to the extent it is relevant reads thus: “(1) The plea for exclusion of charity amount/contribution or donation of Rs.27,500/- and 35,000/- from the taxable charges is dismissed. His plea for exclusion of electricity charges is also dismissed. (2) Rent charges of Rs.73,564-00 being charges less than Rs.5000/- per day collected is also liable to tax. His appeal is dismissed. (3) Penalty u/s 7(d) is reduced to Rs.1000/-.” 6. Against the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11A of the Act bearing STA No.350/2007, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, at Bangalore. The appellate Tribunal also dismissed the appeal affirming the orders passed by the authorities below. 7. His appeal is dismissed. (3) Penalty u/s 7(d) is reduced to Rs.1000/-.” 6. Against the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11A of the Act bearing STA No.350/2007, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, at Bangalore. The appellate Tribunal also dismissed the appeal affirming the orders passed by the authorities below. 7. It is against this backdrop, the petitioner have preferred the present revision raising the following question of law for our consideration: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner and the provisions of section 3-C of KTL Act, 1979 prescribing a levy of luxury tax on the charges collected for the luxury of a marriage hall read with section 2(1-A) of KTL Act, 1979, the Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner was liable to pay tax under section 3-C on voluntary contributions by members towards corpus of the society, collection of rent for certain function which was below the taxable minimum of Rs.5,000 and collection towards electricity charges at actual?” 8. At the outset, we observe that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not advance any submissions insofar as the collection towards electricity charges is concerned. The only contention urged by Mr. Thirumalesh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities below have committed gross error of law in holding that the voluntary contributions made by the members towards corpus of the petitioner-society cannot be stated to be the charges for marriage hall liable to luxury tax under Section 3C of the Act. He submitted that the people who booked and used the marriage hall had paid regular rent and that had been shown in the books of accounts. He submitted that during the relevant assessment year, the petitioner collected from the members and well-wishers of the community certain donations and those amounts were paid voluntarily which were not taken for letting out the marriage hall but it was paid to the petitioner-society to carryout its objectives. Lastly, he submitted that those amounts cannot be treated as charges for marriage hall as contemplated by sub-section (1A) of Section 2 of the Act and that the AO has committed grave error of law in levying luxury tax on such amounts. Lastly, he submitted that those amounts cannot be treated as charges for marriage hall as contemplated by sub-section (1A) of Section 2 of the Act and that the AO has committed grave error of law in levying luxury tax on such amounts. He further submitted that the petitioner-society on several occasions collected less amount as rent for the marriage hall which was below the taxable limit and that being actual, the authorities below were wrong in levying luxury tax by taking that amount as Rs.5,000/- and not on the actual. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the revenue invited out attention to the relevant provisions of the Act, in particular, Section 2(1-A) and the charging Section 3C and Section 4AA and submitted that the claim of the petitioner-society deserves to be rejected outright. 10. Before we consider the merits of the contentions urged, it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant provisions contained in Sections 2(1-A) and 3-C of the Act, to the extent it is necessary, which read thus: “Section (1-A) “Charges for marriage hall” include charges for air-conditioning, chairs, utensils and vessels, shamiana, electricity, water, fuel, interior or exterior decoration or any amount received by way of donation or charity or by whatever name called in relation to letting out the marriage hall but do not include any charges for food and drinks; …………………….. Section 3-C. “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 at the rate of ten per cent of such 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.” 11. From bare perusal of the definition of “charges of marriage hall”, it is clear that even the amounts received by way of donation or charity or by whatever name called “in relation to” letting out the marriage hall are covered and on these amounts, the assessee is liable to pay luxury tax under the charging Section 3-C of the Act. 12. 12. In the light of these provisions, we have perused the entire material placed before us. In our opinion, claim of the petitioner that the donations were voluntary payments made by the members of the society and well-wishers deserves to be rejected outright. Learned counsel for the petitioner though across the bar and for the first time before this Court in the course of argument submitted that there was no connection between the donors and booking of the marriage hall for functions, could not and did not place any materials on record in support thereof. In other words, he submitted that the persons who gave donations did not use the hall for functions. Though such submission was made, no material whatsoever was placed in support thereof at any point of time either before the authorities below or even before this court. On the other hand, it is clear from the record and on verification of books of accounts that the donors/the persons who booked and used the marriage hall were same. It appears from the record that they paid donations after using the marriage hall instead of paying it before. Merely because it was shown by the petitioner-society that the donations were paid after use of the marriage hall, it cannot be stated that it was not in relation to letting it out. On the contrary, it is clear from the materials on record and as observed by the Luxury Tax Officer that the donors had not paid voluntarily but had paid for using the marriage hall. It has also come on record that the petitioner-society in some cases collected booking charges as donation for letting out the marriage hall and final payment as rent for the same. In view thereof, the Luxury Tax Officer has rightly observed that the petitioner-society had made such entries in their books of account to evade the tax. The materials on record show that the donors and the persons who had booked the hall were same and that had not been disputed at any point of time by the petitioner. 13. Thus the “relation” as contemplated by sub-section (1-A) of Section-2 clearly stands established in the facts of this case. The materials on record show that the donors and the persons who had booked the hall were same and that had not been disputed at any point of time by the petitioner. 13. Thus the “relation” as contemplated by sub-section (1-A) of Section-2 clearly stands established in the facts of this case. Sub-section (1A), provides that any amount received by way of donation or charity or by whatever name called in “relation to letting out the marriage hall” is chargeable under Section 3-C. We are satisfied that the amount of donations shown in the returns are in “relation” to letting out the marriage hall and therefore, the luxury tax is payable thereon under Section 3C of the Act. 14. Next, we would like to consider that where collection of charges/rent for certain functions by the proprietor of marriage hall are less than the amount contemplated by Section 3-C, whether they are liable to pay tax as if full charges/rent was collected as provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 4AA of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 4AA provides that where luxury provided in a marriage hall to any person is not charged at all, or is charged at a concessional rate, then the tax on such luxury, shall be levied and collected as if full charges for such luxury were paid to the proprietor of the marriage hall. 15. Section 4-AA was inserted by Act No.5/2001 with effect from 1st April 2001. Insertion of this Section in the Act has changed the complexion of Section 3C of the Act. Under that provision, as it stood prior to 1st April 2001, no tax could be levied if the charges were less than Rs.5,000/- per day. In other words, the marriage halls which were charging less than Rs.5,000/- per day were not coming within the purview of the charging section. To overcome the mischief, the legislature seem to have introduced Section 4AA in the Act with effect from 1st April 2001. Sub-section (2) of Section 4AA empowered the authorities to levy and collect the tax on the luxury provided in a marriage hall to any person who is either not charged or charged at a concessional rate taking that as a full charge/rent paid to the proprietor. 16. Sub-section (2) of Section 4AA empowered the authorities to levy and collect the tax on the luxury provided in a marriage hall to any person who is either not charged or charged at a concessional rate taking that as a full charge/rent paid to the proprietor. 16. The expression “full charges” in this sub-section would mean charges not less than Rs.5,000/- per day as contemplated by Section 3-C of the Act. This has not been disputed by the petitioner. A conjoint reading of Section 3-C and Section 4-AA would show that where charges for luxury provided in a marriage hall are less than Rs.5,000/- per day the luxury tax shall be levied and collected at the rate of 10% as if the full charges were paid to the proprietor. In other words, if the luxury is provided in a marriage hall at a concessional rate, i.e., less than Rs.5,000/-, then the tax on such luxury is liable to be levied and collected as if full charges were paid to the proprietor of marriage hall. 17. In the present case, from the ledger entry at page 33 and 34, it appears that the petitioner-society collected rent varying between Rs.12,000-Rs.800. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner-society in some cases collected less than Rs.5,000/- towards rent and therefore, the Luxury Tax Officer while levying and collecting the tax treated it as full charges for the marriage hall. We do not find any error of law committed by the Luxury Tax Officer. Hence, this contention also deserves to be rejected outright. 18. In the result, we dismiss the revision. The question of law framed by us is accordingly answered in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner-assessee. The revision is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.