New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (5) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Seeking refund of excess privilege amount collected from the petitioner from the 2005-2006 to till date and collect the privilege fee applicable non-star status hotels in respect of the license - Petitioner had paid the privilege fee of ₹ 2,00,000/- for the year 2004-05 on 23.02.2005 - Held that:- when the petitioner had established that they paid the privilege fee till the date of expiry of the three star license, on 07.03.2005, they are not liab .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sly rejected the petitioner's representation for refund of the privilege fee collected after 07.03.2005. The petitioner is entitled to get refund of the excess amount paid by them from the year 2005-06 (i.e.) from 01.04.2005. - Petition disposed of - W.P.No.1434 of 2015, M.P.No.1 of 2015 - Dated:- 20-4-2016 - M. Duraiswamy, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Bharanidharan For the Respondents : Mr. M. S. Ramesh, Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Namakkal and originally had obtained Three Star status for the said Hotel from the Regional Director of India Tourism, Chennai and therefore, had to mandatorily have a bar room in the Hotel. Hence, the petitioner applied for FL-3 license to the 1st respondent, which was granted to them. In view of the same, the petitioner had to pay a higher privilege fee than that was paid by the other regular bars in the other Hotels. After the expiry of the FL-3 license issued in the year 2000, the petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ia Tourism stating that they do not wish to seek for re-classification of their Hotel as Three Star hotel. The Regional Director had issued a letter dated 11.05.2005 for cancelling the Three Star classification issued to the petitioner and also issued a certificate on 10.10.2006 clarifying that the petitioner is not a Three Star Hotel classified by the Department of Tourism with effect from 07.03.2005. After the withdrawal of the status, the petitioner was required to pay a sum of ₹ 1,00,0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tioner. The privilege fee was enhanced from the year 2009 to ₹ 4,00,000/- for FL-3 license and the petitioner was directed to pay ₹ 4,00,000/- from the year 2009 for renewal of license. On 01.03.2010, the petitioner addressed a letter to the 1st respondent seeking for refund of the excess amount collected till 2011. Based on the petitioner's letter, the 1st respondent called for a report from the 2nd respondent wherein the 2nd respondent had conducted spot inspection on 24.11.201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

00/-. Since no order was passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.16347 of 2012 for mandamus directing the respondent to refund the excess privilege amount. This Court, by order dated 14.11.2014, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 03.04.2012 by taking into consideration the recommendation of the 2nd respondent dated 03.01.2011. When the petitioner was called for personal hearing on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed that by the certificate issued by the Regional Director, India Tourism, it is clear that the management has not applied for renewal of Three Star category and because of this reason only the Three Star category was cancelled and not because of the request made by the petitioner as averred by them in the affidavit. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has not produced any valid documents in support of their averments and also had not furnished the no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version