Dismissing the petition the Court held that S.3(1) will have to be interpreted, having regard to the provisions therein, in their entirety disjunctively. Provisions in S. 3(1) or for that matter, other provisions in the Act, make no reference whatsoever to the aspects like `occupancy’ number of beds’, room charges per bed’ or `room charges per occupant’ Act refers to room charges for an unit of residential accommodation in terms of the definition in s. 2(10).  There is no further distinction made in the Act on the basis of double occupancy or triple occupancy or quad occupancy when it comes to determination of room charges.  Such distinction is some unilateral act by the hotel concerned and the same cannot govern the statutory construction, particularly when the provisions of a statute are quite clear. Expression per individual’ refers to an individual incurring chargeable expenditure and consequently, primarily liable for payment of expenditure tax. Expression ‘per individual’ does not refer to the individual, actually occupying the unit of residential accommodation in the hotel.  Contention that the act does not apply to the assesses because the room charges for any unit of residential accommodation at their hotels are fixed on `double occupancy basis’ and therefore, though room charges per se may appear to exceed Rs.1200 per day, having due regard to the expression per individual’ appearing in s. 3(1) such room charges are required to be divided into two and upon such division, the room charges do not exceed Rs.1200 and, therefore, the Act does not apply to them is not sustainable. Circumstances that the expenditure  tax act came to be amended w.e.f. 1^st June, 2002 also does not lead of the inference that the law prior to the amendment entitled the hotel or the person carrying on business of the hotel to divide the room charges as defined under S. 2(10) by number of beds in such room or number of occupants in such room. (AY. 1996-97)