JUDGMENT : Ramachandra Menon, J. Rejection of the request for granting exemption from payment of tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act 1976 raised by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee in respect of the different residential buildings providing accommodation to the devotees/pilgrims [such as the Devaswom Sathram, Panchajanyam Rest House, Sreevalsam Guest House … etc.] as per Ext. P9 order of the State Government is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. As revealed from the preamble of Guruvayoor Devaswom Act 1978, Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor is an ancient temple of unique importance which owns extensive properties and endowments. It is administrated by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and the Administrator [who is the Secretary of the Committee and its Chief Executive Officer] appointed in terms of the Act. 3. Way back on 09.09.1985 Ext. P1 notice was issued by the second respondent directing the Devaswom to produce books of accounts, registers/documents etc., proposing to determine the liability of the Devaswom under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act. On receipt of the said notice, the Administrator sent Ext. P2 reply dated 11.09.1985 pointing out that the Devaswom was only discharging its statutory duty in terms of Section 27 (c) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act 1978, in providing accommodation to the pilgrims and devotees and as such, it will not come within the purview of the Act to satisfy any tax liability. It was also pointed out that the Devaswom was moving the Government for 'exemption' of the Devaswom lodging houses from the purview of the Act and that the matter might be pursued only after the orders to be passed by the Government. The request was stated as not acceptable to the second respondent, as informed vide Ext. P3 notice dated 16.09.1985, also alerting the Devaswom that in case of failure to accede to the requirement, appropriate steps would be pursued to impose penalty for violation of the provisions under the Act. This made the Devaswom to file a detailed representation as per Ext. P4 adverting to the factual and legal position, besides the nature of duty being discharged by the Devaswom in terms of Sections 10 (g) and 27 (c) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act. This made the Devaswom to file a detailed representation as per Ext. P4 adverting to the factual and legal position, besides the nature of duty being discharged by the Devaswom in terms of Sections 10 (g) and 27 (c) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act. It was also pointed out that the rent that was being charged for the rooms in the buildings belonging to the Devaswom was only nominal, just sufficient to maintain the buildings and that the Devaswom was not making any profit out of the rent realized. The activity of the Devaswom was stated as not as of a business venture and hence that it was outside the purview of the Luxury Tax Act. It was accordingly, that 'exemption' was sought for from the purview of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act 1976. 4. According to the petitioner, Ext. P4 was pending consideration before the Government and while so, notices were issued by way of Exts. P5 and P6 to the third respondent, instructing to file returns and to pay tax before the assessing authority under the Luxury Tax Act. A further representation by way of Ext. P7 was sent to the Honorable Chief Minister of the State to save from the operation of the provisions of the above Act in respect of the lodging houses run by the Devawom, pending final orders on Ext. P4. The request placed by the Devaswom for 'exemption' was rejected by the Government as per Ext.P8 communication dated 18.06.1986, pointing out that there was no provision under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act to grant 'exemption' from payment of luxury tax. This made the petitioner to approach the State by way of Ext. P9, styled as an appeal, seeking to grant 'exemption' from the purview of the Act and to grant interim stay of further proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. As per Ext.P10 dated 28.06.1986 issued from the office of the Minister for Finance, the petitioner Devaswom was informed that Ext. P9 had already been forwarded to the Secretary to Taxes for necessary action. 5. Since no further steps were seen as pursued from the part of the Devaswom, in response to the notice issued by the second respondent earlier, reference was made to Ext. P8 rejection of the claim for 'exemption' by the Government and the Devaswom was required to submit return with proof of payment of tax due. 5. Since no further steps were seen as pursued from the part of the Devaswom, in response to the notice issued by the second respondent earlier, reference was made to Ext. P8 rejection of the claim for 'exemption' by the Government and the Devaswom was required to submit return with proof of payment of tax due. This made the petitioner to challenge the same by filing W.P(C) No.2656 of 1987 before this Court. Referring to the pendency of Ext. P9 before the Government, as communicated vide Ext. P10, the said Writ Petition was disposed of, directing the Government to take a final decision on Ext. P9, simultaneously ordering all further steps against the petitioner to be kept in abeyance. It was also directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Devaswom. 6. Based on the above verdict, a hearing was scheduled on 31.07.2008, as intimated to the petitioner Devaswom by Ext. P13 dated 23.07.2008. After hearing, some aspects were sought to be clarified, which accordingly was given by the petitioner Devaswom as per Ext. P14 dated 04.08.2008. The third respondent in the meanwhile issued Exts. P15 and P16 notices alerting the petitioner Devaswom as to the lapse involved - which might amount to penal offences under the Act and the Devaswom was directed to furnish collection particulars of the Luxury Tax in the given format. 7. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P17 reply, pointing out that the Devaswom was maintaining the lodging houses, not as any business but without any profit motive, and was only discharging the duties in terms of Section 10 (g) and 27 (c) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act in providing accommodation facility to the temple worshipers; adding that the rent that was being collected was hardly sufficient to meet the establishment and maintenance charges. It was also pointed out that, the matter was still pending consideration before the Government, who was to take a final decision pursuant to Ext. P12 verdict passed by this Court, besides making it clear that the Devaswom will act on receipt of the final orders from the Government. Referring to Ext. P16 notice asking the Devaswom to give particulars of the tax collected in the given format and the lapse involved therein, Ext. P12 verdict passed by this Court, besides making it clear that the Devaswom will act on receipt of the final orders from the Government. Referring to Ext. P16 notice asking the Devaswom to give particulars of the tax collected in the given format and the lapse involved therein, Ext. P18 notice was issued under Section 17(A)(b) of the Tax on Luxuries Act, proposing to impose a penalty of Rs.5000/-, also calling for objections, if any. This was followed by Ext.P20 notice dated 14.11.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent, pointing out that the Government had already turned down the request of the Devaswom as per the proceedings dated 06.11.2008 and that the petitioner was not eligible for any exemption under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act; in turn instructing the petitioner Devaswom to file returns in Form No. I and remit the tax due from September 1992, failing which, penal action would be taken in terms of the Act. 8. The Government rejected the representation pursuant to Ext. P12 judgment as per Ext. P19 dated 06.11.2008, observing that Luxury Tax was not to be paid on the profit of the Devaswom Board and that it was collectible, by virtue of which, the Devaswom was in no way to be aggrieved. Lack of provision to grant 'exemption' under the Luxury tax Act was also referred to and the intention of the Legislature to collect tax even from the Government institutions, as discernible from the 'explanation' added to Section 2 (e) of the Act, was adverted to. Producing a copy of the said order as Ext. P19, the petitioner has moved this Court challenging the various notices/proceedings and Exts. P18 to P20 by way of the present writ petition, also seeking to declare that the provisions of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act are not applicable to the Devaswom sathram/Rest House/Guest house etc. run by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Management Committee. 9. A counter affidavit dated 04.08.2009 has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 seeking to sustain the course and proceedings pursued by the departmental authorities. run by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Management Committee. 9. A counter affidavit dated 04.08.2009 has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 seeking to sustain the course and proceedings pursued by the departmental authorities. Interim stay granted by this Court was sought to be vacated by filing different I.A.s [including I.A. No. 5232 of 2011] also pointing out that the petitioner Devaswom was collecting Luxury Tax from the occupants of the buildings and that a huge amount, which was collected under this head from April 1981, was unauthorisedly retained at the hands of the Devaswom, without being remitted to the State. It was further pointed out that the rate of rental charges realized by the Devaswom was equal or more, than the rent which was prevailing in the local area/other hotels/lodging places. It was also pointed out that running and maintaining of an Auditorium namely 'Poonthanam Hall' for conducting marriages and such other ceremonies was on rent being collected @ Rs. 57,600/- and that no other auditorium in Guruvayoor was charging rent as this much. It was further made clear that by no means, the tax collected could be reimbursed to the guests in the past 3½ decades [from April 1981] and that no law permits the Devaswom to keep the tax collected, with them. 10. Further I.As were filed by the Government [I.A. Nos. 4674/2011, 1698/2013 and 644/2015] specifically pointing out that more than Rs.10 crores had already been collected by the Guruvayoor Devaswom from the customers from the year 1981 and that the same was being kept by the Devaswom without being remitted to the Government; however seeking to have the matter heard at the earliest. Thereafter, an additional counter affidavit dated 26.06.2015 was filed by the Commercial Tax Officer [Luxury Tax], Thrissur, working in the office of the Deputy Commissioner Thrissur, pointing out that the matters relating to Luxury Tax have been separately assigned to the said officer. It is pointed out in paragraph 4 of the said additional counter affidavit that the petitioner Devaswom has constructed additional structures, used as Guest house, after filing of the writ petition. Apart from the VIP Guest house, an annexe was also constructed and they are rented out at very high rate, adding that the petitioner has been collecting Luxury Tax from the guests. 11. Apart from the VIP Guest house, an annexe was also constructed and they are rented out at very high rate, adding that the petitioner has been collecting Luxury Tax from the guests. 11. After giving chronology of the dates and events, the factual position as to the possession of five Guest houses and one Auditorium by the petitioner Devaswom, which are being let out to the pilgrims and public at large for monetary consideration stands asserted. The details in this regard, including the tariff as on 17.10.2010 have been given in paragraph 7 [in the form of a table], which is extracted below: Name of Guest House No. of Rooms No. of A/c Rooms No. of non A/C rooms Tariff A/c Rooms Tariff A/C Rooms Koustubam 85 8 77 Rs.635 + LT 2 bed - Rs.200+ LT (56 Nos.) 3 bed - Rs.400+LT (5 Nos.) 6 bed- Rs.600 + LT (16 Nos.) GSS - Guruvayur Sathyagraha Smaraka Mandiram 28 9 10 Rs.725 + LT Rs.400 + LT Panchajanyam (LT-38) 108 11 94 3 bed - Rs.863 +LT (10 Nos.) 5 bed - Rs.1150 + LT (1 No.) 3 bed - Rs. 390+ LT (71 Nos) 5 bed - Rs.520+ LT (23 Nos.) Sreevalsam (LT - 37) 6 suites 6 Nil 4 suites @ 1610 + LT 1 Suites @ 1250 + LT 1 Suits @ 920 + LT Nil Sathram (LT -35) 36 Nos. Nil 36 Rs. 20 per person Poonthanam Auditorium (GSS Mandirama) 1 Audit orium + 2 Dining Halls 3 Nil Auditorium Rs.57,00 including LT Dining Halll Rs.5800 each including LT 12. It is brought on record that the petitioner Devaswom had applied for and obtained registration under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act after initiation of the proceedings in 1985 and had paid Luxury Tax in respect of the following Rest Houses/Guest Houses for the period from April 1991 to November 1992: Sathram [registration No. LT 35] Kousthubham [registration No. LT 36[] Sreevalsam [registration No. LT 37] Panchajanyam [registration No. LT 38] After November 1992, the petitioner Devaswom stopped filing of returns and payment of Luxury Tax, though the petitioner Devaswom was collecting Luxury Tax from the persons to whom Guest house and Auditorium were being rented out. It has been asserted in paragraph 9 of the said additional counter affidavit that the Sathram/Guest houses and Auditorium of the petitioner Devaswom are not located within the premises of the Temple. It is stated that the Temple is surrounded by external 'Nadappura' and people belonging to the other religions are not permitted to enter the Temple premises beyond the external 'Nadapura'. It is pointed out that the rest house 'Kousthubham' is situated at 110 m. away from the temple and it is located beyond the ring road, 'Poonthanam Auditorium' is beyond 230m away from the temple, Sreevalsam Guest House is placed at 110m. away from the temple; whereas 'Panchajanyam' and 'Sreevalsam' are located on the southern side of the ring road and there is no way to have any direct access to the temple. There are several other private buildings between the external 'Nadapura' and the above structures. Absence of any provision to grant exemption [but for under the first proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, whereby the hall/auditorium, is situated within the premises of place of worship, stands excluded] is also pointed out in the additional counter affidavit. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that they are not doing any business, it is stated as not sustainable, placing reliance on the verdicts passed by this Court in Trivandrum Club Vs. Sales Tax Officer [2012 (3) KHC 779] and Payyannur Educational Society Vs. Narayani [ 1995 (1) KLT 621 ]. Scope of definition of the term 'business' is sought to be explained with reference to the verdict of the Apex Court in Tamilnadu Kalyanamandapam Vs. Union of India [ (2004) 5 SCC 632 = 2004 KHC 790]. The additional counter affidavit also points out that, despite the mandatory duty to remit the tax collected to the Government as provided under Section 4 (3) [wrongly mentioned as Section 4 (2) (f) in paragraph 12 of the additional counter affidavit], it was not being satisfied and was/is being unauthorisedly retained with the Devaswom; which amounts to unlawful/unjust enrichment. 13. The above vital facts pointed out by the respondents in the additional affidavit dated 26.06.2015 have not been sought to be rebutted by the petitioner Devaswom. 13. The above vital facts pointed out by the respondents in the additional affidavit dated 26.06.2015 have not been sought to be rebutted by the petitioner Devaswom. As stated in paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition, they have been collecting 'Luxury Tax' on the basis of a legal opinion, from persons occupying the rooms in the 'Sathram' and such other residential apartments, and it has been kept it in a separate account, pending final decision on Ext. P9; though the date of legal opinion or the date of commencement of the collection of tax as above is not revealed therein. A copy of the aforesaid legal opinion dated 22.02.1991 has been procured under the RTI Act and produced by the respondent along with the other additional counter affidavit dated 26.06.2015 as Ext. R1(a). It is with reference to this document, that the Government has asserted, also in the light of the payments made by the petitioner Devaswom, in paragraph 10 that they have been collecting Luxury Tax from the customers from 1991 onwards and that a sum of more than 10 crores is kept in a separate Bank account, quite unauthorisedly, without being remitted to the Government in terms of Section 4 (3) of the Act. 14. In so far as the above factual particulars have not been rebutted by the petitioner Devaswom, the pleadings in this regard stand uncontroverted and adverse inference is liable to be drawn with regard to the tax admittedly collected from the customers/occupants/pilgrims/worshippers. The fact that rent is being charged from the occupants, also realizing the 'Luxury Tax' is evident from the tariff for the different rooms/air conditioned rooms, suits etc in the building complex/rest house/guest house [as disclosed from paragraph 7 of the tariff given in the form of a table of the additional counter affidavit, which has already been extracted]. The fact that rent is being charged from the occupants, also realizing the 'Luxury Tax' is evident from the tariff for the different rooms/air conditioned rooms, suits etc in the building complex/rest house/guest house [as disclosed from paragraph 7 of the tariff given in the form of a table of the additional counter affidavit, which has already been extracted]. When the petitioners contend that the buildings belonging to the Devaswom do not come within the purview of the term 'hotel' defined under Section 2 (e) of the Act; that there is no instance of 'luxury in the hotel' as envisaged under Section 2 (f) of the Act and that they are not pursuing any act of business or making any profit, but for meeting the requirements of the pilgrims, providing accommodation to them 'on a no profit no loss basis'; just discharging the obligation in terms of Section 2 (g) and 27 (c) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act; the petitioner Devawom has failed to explain the retention of tax collected from the occupants/customers/pilgrims at their hands, though in a separate account and generating interest without being paid/credited to the Government in terms of Section 4 (3) of the Act. Irrespective of the fact whether there is actually any liability or not, if anybody has collected tax in the name of the Government, it is liable to be paid to the Government, which is the mandate under Section 4 (3) of the Act. In so far as this duty to satisfy the same to the Government after collecting the same is not discharged by the petitioner Devaswom, there is violation of the provisions of law and if it is let to remain at the hands of the petitioner Devaswom, it may even amount to various offences as well. 15. The petitioner Devaswom does not have a case that tax was being collected from the guests/occupants on 'provisional basis', agreeing to refund it to the guests, if ultimately the issue came to be decided in favour of the Devaswom. No such pleading is raised and no material is produced in this regard including the particulars of such guests/occupants/pilgrims who were occupying the rooms from 1991 onwards. No such pleading is raised and no material is produced in this regard including the particulars of such guests/occupants/pilgrims who were occupying the rooms from 1991 onwards. As such, even if any decision is rendered in favour of the petitioner with regard to the liability to pay tax, the amount already collected by the Devaswom from the pilgrims/occupants/worshipers referring to the liability to pay Luxury Tax in terms of the Statute, cannot be appropriated by them, but should go to the Government, having been collected in the name of the Government. We find support from the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And others Vs. Union of India and Ors. [ (1997) 5 SCC 536 ] and in State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Swanstone Multiplex Cinema Pvt. Ltd. [ (2009) 8 SCC 235 ] and by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. M/s Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd. [2012 (3) KHC 33]. In the said circumstances, since the above factual particulars have not been denied or controverted by the petitioner Devaswom, this Court cannot but hold that the entire amount collected by the Devaswom towards the 'Luxury Tax' based on the legal opinion stated as obtained [a copy of which has been produced as Ext. R2 (a) along with additional counter affidavit] and stated as kept in a separate account along with interest accrued thereon, shall be remitted to the account of the Government at the earliest, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 16. Coming to the liability under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, the charging provision i.e. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows : 4. 16. Coming to the liability under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, the charging provision i.e. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows : 4. Levy and collection of luxury tax :-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be levied and collected a tax, hereinafter called the ‘luxury tax’, in respect of any luxury provided,— (i) in a hotel, house boat, hall, auditorium or kalyanamandapam or including those attached to hotels, clubs, kalyanamandapam and places of the like nature which are rented for accommodation for residence or used for conducting functions, whether public or private, exhibition; (ii) by Direct-To-Home (DTH) Service Provider (iii) in a hospital ; and (iv) in a home stay: Provided that the sub-section shall not apply to- (i) halls and auditorium located within the premises of‘ places of worship’ owned by religious institutions; (ii) to the retiring rooms in the railway stations, managed by Indian Railways; (iii) to dormitories (2) Luxury tax shall be levied and collected,— (a) in respect of a hotel, for charges of accommodation for residence and other amenities and services provided in the hotel, excluding food and liquor,— (i) at the rate of seven and half percent per room for hotels, in respect of rooms where the gross charges of accommodation for residence and other amenities and services provided is above rupees two hundred and upto five hundred per day ; (ii) at the rate of twelve and a half percent for hotels in respect of rooms where the gross charges of accommodation for residence and other amenities and services provided above rupees five hundred per day ; Provided that no luxury tax shall be payable, for such charges received in respect of service rendered outside the hotel premises, such as vehicle hire, boat hire and trekking: Provided further that the hire charges received in respect of house boats owned or possessed with right to use it by the hotels shall be liable to tax under the Act. (b) in respect of a house boat, for charges of accommodation for residence and other amenities and services provided, excluding food and liquor, at the rate fifteen per cent ; (c) in respect of a convention centre, hall, Kalyanamandapam, auditorium including those attached to hotels, clubs or places of the like nature, for the charges for accommodation, amenities and services provided excluding food and beverage : (i) at the rate of ten per cent where the gross charges of accommodation and other amenities and services provided is above rupees three thousand and up to rupees ten thousand per day; (ii) at the rate of fifteen per cent where the gross charges of accommodation and other amenities and services provided is above rupees ten thousand and up to rupees twenty thousand per day; (d) xxxxx [and shall be collectable from the person enjoying the luxury and the luxury tax, if any, collected shall be paid over to the Government]. (e) in respect of a hospital, for charges of accommodation for residence for use of amenities and services, at the rate of ten percent per room where the gross charges, excluding charges of food, medicine and professional services, is one thousand rupees per day or more. (f) in respect of a home stay, for charges of accommodation including use of amenities and services provided at the rate of half per cent where the daily rate of gross charges is rupees one thousand or more. [xxx] (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), there shall be levied a luxury tax at the rate of rupees one hundred per year per member and the same shall be collected by the person responsible for the management of the club, by whatever name called. Explanation: For the purpose of this section, ‘club’ means a club which provides more than two facilities like card room, bar, billiard rooms, snooker room, tennis court, swimming pool, Sauna Jacuzzi and the like, gymnasium, golf course, internet facility, video, video compact disk, digital video disk and computer games and having a membership strength of at least twenty five. [xxx] (3) The luxury tax shall be collected by the proprietor and paid within such period and in such manner as may be prescribed, into a Government treasury or a Nationalised bank notified by Government in this behalf. [xxx] (3) The luxury tax shall be collected by the proprietor and paid within such period and in such manner as may be prescribed, into a Government treasury or a Nationalised bank notified by Government in this behalf. (4) In computing the luxury tax, a fraction of a rupee, which is not a multiple of five paise, shall be rounded off to the next higher multiple of five paise. (5) Every Direct-To-Home (DTH) Broadcasting Service Provider in the State shall pay Luxury Tax at the rate of two per cent on the gross charges received or receivable by him every month in any manner including installation charges, subscription charges, recharges, or other charges by whatever name called from the subscribers in the State in respect of the Luxury provided by him. 17. Then, the question is whether the buildings involved can be categorized as a 'Hotel' and whether any 'luxury' is involved as provided in such hotel. Section 2 (e) defining the term 'Hotel' and Section 2 (f) defining the term 'luxury provided in hotel' are as given below: “2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: - xxxxxx (e) "hotel" means a building or part of a building where residential accommodation is by way of business provided for a monetary consideration and includes a lodging house. Explanation. – A guest house run by the Government or a company or a corporation established by or under any law or any other agency shall be deemed to be a hotel within the meaning of this clause. (f) "luxury provided in a hotel, house boat, hall, auditorium, kalyanamandapam or place of like nature" means accommodation for residence or use and other amenities and services provided in a hotel or a house boat or hall or auditorium or kalyanamandapam or place of like nature the rate of charges of accommodation for residence and other amenities and services provided excluding charges of food and liquor is one hundred and fifty rupees per day or more:, The specific case projected by the petitioner Devaswom is that they are not doing any 'business' and unless the residential accommodation is provided by way of business, it will not satisfy the definition of the term 'Hotel'. Devaswom is discharging a statutory duty in terms of Section 10(g) and 27 (c) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act and hence the activity of the Devaswom can under no circumstance be termed as a business or that it is an activity with any profit making motive. It is also added that the rent being realized is just to meet the maintenance, on a 'no profit no loss basis'. 18. The learned standing counsel for the Devaswom submits that as per the law declared by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madreas [ (1999) 114 STC 520 ] dealing with the provisions under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, in a taxing statute the word 'business' is normally used in the sense of an act which occupies time, attention and labour of persons, normally with a profit motive and there must be a course or dealing, with either actual or continuing or contemplated to be continued with a profit motive and not for sport or pleasure. It has also been held that, when the main activity is not business, then the connected/incidental/ancillary activities of sale would not normally amount to a business, unless the connected/incidental/ancillary activity is established by the Revenue; adding that the burden in this regard is lies with the Department. 19. The statutory duty stated as being discharged by the petitioner Devaswom with reference to Section 10 (g) and 27 (c) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act are extracted below: “10. Duties of committee. - Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, it shall be the duty of the Committee – xxxxxx (g) to do all such things as may be incidental and conducive to the efficient management of the affairs of the Devaswom and the convenience of the worshippers. 27. Authority of Committee to incur expenditure for certain purposes. - The Committee may, after making adequate provision for the purposes referred to in subsection (2) of section 21, incur expenditure out of the funds of the Devaswom for all or any of the following purposes, namely: - xxxxxx (c) medical relief, water supply and other sanitary arrangements for the worshippers and the pilgrims and construction of building for their accommodation;” 20. Section 10 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act only deals with the duties of the Committee constituted under Section 4 of the Act. Similarly, Section 27 deals with the authority of the Committee to incur expenditure for certain purposes, such as in relation to medical relief, water supply, sanitary arrangements for the worshipers/pilgrims and for the construction of building for their accommodation. Under Section 27 (ee), the Committee can also incur expenditure in connection with construction of the buildings connected with the affairs of the Devaswom, which is independent of Section 27 (c). Similarly, under Section 27 (f), it is open for the Committee to incur expenditure for establishment and maintenance of educational institutions owned or managed by the Devaswom or in which the Devaswom has interest. In other words, the circumstances envisaged under Sections 27 (ee) and 27 (f) are not primarily connected with the affairs of the pilgrims/worshipers. In the instant case, the Sathram/Guest house/Rest houses are situated much away from the temple premises as asserted in the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent, which stands uncontroverted and there are several other private buildings in between. It is also an undisputed fact that the rooms are being let out by the Devaswom to various persons, also charging luxury tax in terms of the Act, though it is not remitted to the Government's account, but kept in a separate account, allegedly on the basis of a legal opinion obtained in this regard. In other words, there is no exclusivity in letting out the rooms to pilgrims/worshipers and no mechanism, if at all it be so, is stated as evolved or brought to the notice of this Court ensuring that letting out of the rooms stands exclusively for the pilgrims/worshipers who come to the temple. It is quite open for anybody to obtain an accommodation in the above buildings on paying rent as stipulated by the Board and such persons might have come to Guruvayoor in connection with their business/office/personal purpose as well. It is quite open for anybody to obtain an accommodation in the above buildings on paying rent as stipulated by the Board and such persons might have come to Guruvayoor in connection with their business/office/personal purpose as well. To put it more clear, even if such persons do no visit the temple and do not come within the category of pilgrims/worshipers, nothing prevents them from occupying the room/s subject to availability and payment of rent as stipulated by the Board and this cannot be termed as an activity performed by the Devaswom exclusively for the pilgrims/worshipers, but reflects the colour and characteristics of a 'business activity' pursued by the Devaswom. 21. The word 'business' has been incorporated under the Section 2 (e) of the Luxury Tax Act while defining the term 'hotel' to denote the nature of transaction as the place where the residential accommodation is by way of “business provided for a monetary consideration” and includes a lodging house. The term 'business' done for monetary consideration only denotes the commercial nature involved that are chargeable and such other activities which will come within the purview of the Statute. The Statute also takes care of a situation where it will not amount a 'luxury provided in a hotel', by fixing a ceiling to the monetary consideration, prescribing a specific rate under Section 4(2) of the Act. It is open for the Devaswom to confine such activity by providing accommodation to the pilgrims/worshipers to the said/requisite extent taking it outside the purview of the Act, if the rate is fixed below the cut off limit. When the rates stipulated are admittedly much above such limit, providing amenities/infrastructure of better nature by installing Air conditioners, Television or such other comfort, based on the capacity to pay, it becomes part of the 'business activity'. It is also relevant to note that the Managing Committee of the Devaswom, who is an entity under the Statute is not confined to the temple activities alone and is not prevented from pursuing such other activities as well, to the extent permissible, for which power is given to the Committee to meet the necessary expenditure as already pointed out with reference to Section 27 (f) and such other provisions in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act. This being the position, the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. This being the position, the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madreas [ (1999) 114 STC 520 ] and the other decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner Devaswom do not persuade this Court to answer the position in favour of the petitioner. 22. The decision rendered by a Division bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Upasana Hospital [(1997) 225 ITR 845] was a case under the Income Tax Act. The term 'business' carried on in running a 'hospital' came to be under the scrutiny of the Court and one of the two main points considered was, whether running a hospital where X-ray and other equipments were used for diagnosing the disease could be called a 'business activity'. The questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, which however does not support the case of the petitioner Devaswom, in view of the difference in the factual context. 23. Some what similar finding had been rendered by the Apex Court earlier as reported in 1965 SC 531 [The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s H. Abdul Bakhi and Bors.] while dealing with the provisions of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax and the Rules thereunder. In that case, the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed, holding that it was not possible to say that 'tanning bark' was brought by the respondent assessee for a purpose unconnected with the business carried on by them. The decision rendered by the Apex Court in Senairam Doongarmall Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [ AIR 1961 SC 1579 ] under the Income Tax Act is also sought to be relied on by the petitioner Devaswom; where it was to denote an activity with the object of earning profit. Going by the contents of the provision of law, particularly Section 2 (f) and Section 4 of the Tax on Luxuries Act, the meaning given to the word 'business' under the Income Tax Act as such is not liable to be applied, since the purposes of the two different Statutes are entirely different. Going by the contents of the provision of law, particularly Section 2 (f) and Section 4 of the Tax on Luxuries Act, the meaning given to the word 'business' under the Income Tax Act as such is not liable to be applied, since the purposes of the two different Statutes are entirely different. Whether profit is generated or not, if the activity is done to the extent it satisfies the terms of the Luxury Tax Act, it will come within the purview of the taxable net under the said Statute and as such, the above decision does not support the case mooted by the petitioner. 24. With regard to the law declared by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Sri. Palani Dhandayuthapani Devasthanam rep. by is Executive Officer Vs. Commercial Tax Officer [ (2001) 124 STC 553 Mad.], the challenge was by the 'Palani Dandaythapani Devasthanam' represented by the Executive Officer, against the assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries Act in Hotel and Lodging House Act 1981. Interference declined by the learned single Judge, holding that writ petition was premature and that there was alternate remedy by way of appeal, was interdicted by the Division Bench. Similar contention as involved in the present case, that the Devasthanam was not doing any 'business' and that it was not pursuing any activity with profit motive, were raised therein as well. Analogy was sought to be made by the Revenue with reference to the provisions as contained in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Bench observed that, in as much as the object under these two Acts cannot be said to be one and the same, it would not be correct to apply the definition of the term 'business' as given in Tamil Nadu General Sales Act 1959 into Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries in Hotel and Lodging Houses Act 1981. While deciding the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, the Bench clearly observed in paragraph 10 of the said verdict that, if the Legislature really desired the definition as given under the Sales Tax Act [as amended by the Amendment Act 1964] to be adopted, that would have been certainly made clear in the present Act by indicating sufficiently by introducing an explanation clause mentioning the same, which had not been done. 25. 25. Unlike this, in the present case what is intended by the Legislature is discernible from the 'explanation' to Section 2 (e) [extracted already], which clearly says that a Guest House run by the Government or a Company or a Corporation established by or under any law or any other agency shall deemed to be 'hotel' within the meaning of the said clause. This clearly means, even if the Guest House is run by Government or a Company, which is presumably for the use of the guests of the Government/Company [where, normally, there is no chance to realize any monetary consideration from the guests], liability still remains to satisfy the tax in terms of the Statute. In other words, such Guest house run/belonging to the Government is not to be exempted from the taxable net under the Statute and this being the position, the contention raised by the petitioner Devaswom that its Sathram/Rest house/Guest house will not come within the purview of the Statute, despite the rent being collected at different rates, is not correct or sustainable. We hold the position against the petitioner and in favour of the revenue. 26. Another important aspect to be noted is that, there was no doubt in the minds of the petitioner as to the scope of the Statute when they voluntarily applied for and got registration, who accordingly was satisfying the tax liability earlier. It was thereafter, that they abruptly stopped the remittance of tax to the Government and did not seek for or renew the registration, despite the fact that they were collecting the tax from the occupants/pilgrims/worshipers under the Statute which was quite unauthorised in all respects, as it was not being remitted to the Government. The action pursued by the Devaswom, in not remitting the tax to the Government, despite its collection and in spite of the liability to have effected the same in terms of Section 4 (3) of the Act, that too, even after obtaining Ext. R1(a) legal opinion dated 22.02.1991 is not liable to be sustained. 27. It is also a point to be noted that when the petitioner sought for exemption from the purview of the Statute as per Ext. P9 [which was directed to be considered as per Ext. P12 judgment], under which provision of the Statute, was it to be considered was never mentioned. 27. It is also a point to be noted that when the petitioner sought for exemption from the purview of the Statute as per Ext. P9 [which was directed to be considered as per Ext. P12 judgment], under which provision of the Statute, was it to be considered was never mentioned. Obviously, as pointed out by the Government vide Ext.P19, there is no provision under the Statute to grant any such exemption, when buildings/guest houses belonging to the Government are even liable to be taxed, as given in the 'explanation', bringing it within the purview of the tax net. There cannot be any exclusion to the buildings belonging to petitioner Devaswom in so far as it satisfies the requirements of Section 2 (e)/(f) and the mandate under Section 4 (1) - the charging provision. In the above circumstances, the challenge raised against Ext. P19 and other notices issued by the respondent fails. Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. It is dismissed accordingly. 28. The amount already collected and stated as kept in a separate account, based on the legal opinion as stated in paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition and as asserted by the respondent in the additional counter affidavit, with the interest accrued thereon, shall be remitted to the Government in terms of Section 4 (3) of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Considering the particular facts and circumstances, we find it appropriate to make it clear that no further interest or penalty shall be levied on the Devaswom in this regard.