1980 Supreme(Kar) 27
Karnataka High Court
K.SEETHARAMA RAO - Appellant
Versus
ASST.COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER - Respondent
Decided On : 01-28-80
The supply of food and drink in a restaurant is considered a service, not a sale, under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
Headnote:
Sales Tax - Restaurant Turnover - Service vs. Sale of Food Articles
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, proprietor of a restaurant, challenged the assessment of turnover under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, arguing that the turnover to customers is for service, not sale of food articles.
Finding of the Court:
The court referred to a Supreme Court case and concluded that the supply of food and drink in a restaurant is considered a service, not a sale, regardless of whether it is provided to residents of a hotel or casual customers.
Issues: Assessment of turnover in a restaurant business under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the supply of food and drink in a restaurant is regarded as a service, not a sale, and ruled in favor of the petitioner, restraining the respondents from levying sales tax on the restaurant's business turnover.
Final Decision: The petitioner is entitled to a mandamus restraining the respondents from levying sales tax on the restaurant's business turnover.
( 2 ) IN the case of Northern India caterers (India) v. Lt. Governor of delhi, AIR 1978 SC. 1591. the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the service of meals to casual visitors in a restaurant located in a hotel in which lodging and meals are provided on inclusive terms' to residents is not taxable as a sale under the Act. It further held that the position is the same even in respect of the charge imposed for the meal as a whole or according to dishes separately ordered. The decision lias further laid down that supply of food and drink can only be regarded as service and not as sale, irrespective of whether such service is to a resident of the hotel or casual customers to the restaurant.
( 3 ) THE learned Government Advocate sought to make a distinction in the matter of a hotel which has boarding and lodging facility in addition to restaurant facility and restaurant simpliciter, I do not think that what is applied to a restaurant in a composite hotel will not also apply to restaurant simpliciter. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is liable to succeed and in entitled to a mandamus restr lining the respondents from levying sales tax on his business turnover in his restaurant. It is accordingly ordered. In. the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
--- *** ---
.