Madhya Pradesh High CourtVlcc Health Care Ltd. Th: Shri Umesh ... vs State Of M.P. on 4 September, 2014W.P.No.8640/2012                   1




    VLCC Health Care Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
04/09/2014
       Shri G.N.Purohit Sr.Advocate with Shri Abhishek
Oswam and Shri Pavan Dwivedi, Advocates for the
petitioner.
     Shri Raghvendra Dixit, Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.Heard.The petitioner has filed this petition for the
following reliefs :-"(i) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
      issue a writ/order or direction in the nature
      of certiorari declaring the sections 2(1) (a),(d), (h) (i), (k), (m), (p), (q) (s), (t), 3, 4, 5, 6,
      7 & 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita,
      Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar
      Adhiniyam, 2011 impugned herein under in
      so far as it relates to imposition of Luxury
      Tax on Beauty Clinic and imposition of
      Entertainment Tax on Health and Fitness
      Centre service providers as ultra vires and
      void.(ii) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
      issue a writ/order or direction in the nature
      of mandamus commanding the respondents
      not to levy any tax under the Madhya
      Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam
      Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam, 2011 on the
      services provided by the petitioner.(iii) Hon'ble Court may kindly be provided
      to issue a writ/order or direction in the
      nature      of     mandamus        directing      the
      respondents not to proceed with the
      registration and assessment of the tax
      under the Act.(iv) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
      issue a writ/order or direction in the natureW.P.No.8640/2012              2of certiorari to quash the notices
     Annexure P/6 demanding luxury tax and
     Entertainment Tax.(v) Any other relief which this Hon'ble
     Court may deem just and proper in the
     facts and circumstances of the case may
     kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner
     along with cost of the petition.(vi) It may please be held that healthcare
     service provided by the petitioner in the
     form of slimming services are not part of
     luxury or entertainment. A writ of
     mandamus may please be issued not to
     subject to tax the slimming services as
     luxury."Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does
not want to press the relief in regard to declaring
certain    sections     of   Madhya     Pradesh      Vilasita,
Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam,
2011 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 2011) for
beauty    parlour     services.   Learned   senior   counsel
further contended that the relief be restricted for
slimming services.We have perused the order passed by the
authorised authority - Professional Tax Assessment
Authority, Professional Tax, Circle Gwalior. In the
aforesaid order, the authority itself granted relief to
the petitioner in regard to health care services and no
tax has been imposed against the petitioner on the
amount which was received by the petitioner against
health care services.W.P.No.8640/2012                     3When the authority itself granted the relief to the
     petitioner and exempted the petitioner from payment
     of tax on health care services, in our opinion, there is
     no necessity to adjudicate the matter and pronounce
     the judgment that health care services could not be
     taxed under the provisions of Act of 2011.In our opinion, the point raised by the learned
     senior counsel during argument in regard to luxury tax
     on health care services i.e. slimming services is not
     required    to    be     adjudicated   in        the    facts     and
     circumstances of the present case because the benefit
     has already been provided by the prescribed authority
     to the petitioner. In regard to other services, the
     petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same if any
     occasion arises after decision of the writ petitions,
     which   are      pending     before    the       main     seat     or
     adjudication on the subject.With     the      aforesaid   observation,        petition    is
     disposed of. No order as to costs.(S.K. Gangele)                                (S.K.Palo)
            Judge                                       Judge

SP