HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd. and Others v. Union of India
Writ Petition Nos. 254-261 of 1981
[1989] 2 SCR 880 ·
Hotel Receipts Tax Act, 1980: sections 3, 5 and 6 · Constitution of India: Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 246, 248 and 254; Lists I Entry 82 and II Entry 62
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by M. N. Venkatachaliah, J. · R. S. Pathak, C.J. · Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. · S. Natarajan, J. · M. N. Venkatachaliah, J. · S. Ranganathan, J.
Assessment years: 1981-82
01 · Facts of the case
The 1980 Act imposed a 15% tax on broadly defined hotel receipts where room charges reached Rs.75 per person per day. Hoteliers challenged the levy directly under Article 32 as outside Parliament's field and discriminatory (SCR pp.880, 883-888; PDF pp.1, 4-9).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Legislative entries receive their widest reasonable meaning, and income in Entry 82 is not confined by narrower definitions in particular fiscal statutes. Gross hotel receipts could fall within Parliament's field. Tax classifications receive latitude; the room-rate threshold rationally identified hotels reflecting greater economic capacity, and the Article 14 and 19 challenges failed (SCR pp.888-892; PDF pp.9-13).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
All writ petitions were dismissed without an order as to costs (SCR p.892; PDF p.13).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the Union/Revenue; the Court upheld legislative competence and the challenged classification (SCR pp.891-892; PDF pp.12-13).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: identify the levy's true field and construe the constitutional entry broadly. A gross-receipts measure does not by itself determine legislative character, and a statutory definition should not be imported into Entry 82 (based on SCR pp.888-892; PDF pp.9-13).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 13-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 13-page count match catalogue asset 1989_2_880_892; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated identity, bench, statutory issue and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus or reviewed archive.
Statutory scope
The Hotel Receipts Tax levy discussed was discontinued from 27 February 1982; the note does not imply an operative current charge.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.