JAYASINGH Vs. K K VELAYUTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition was preferred by the appellant seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 and also for other consequential reliefs. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise holding that the writ petitioners are providers of catering service to M/s. AIR India and are liable to get registered under Section 69 of Finance Act (No. 2), 2004 and also to follow the provisions of the said Act and Rules with effect from 10-9-2004.

(2.) Writ petitioner submitted that it would not fall within the definition of "caterer" under Section 65(24) of the Finance Act since petitioner is not providing any catering service. According to the petitioner, those who supply food on occasions like marriage etc. alone can be treated as caterers. Petitioner pointed out that it would not fall within the definition of caterer and no service tax can be imposed on the petitioner. Contention was rejected by the learned single Judge. Learned single Judge Reported in - Sai Flight Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise took the view that both service tax and sales-tax under the impugned provisions could be levied on the petitioner and rejected the writ petition against which this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the same contentions which were raised before the learned single Judge. Petitioner is engaged in the supply of food and beverages to Air companies for inflight service to passengers. Central Excise Department demanded service tax from the petitioner. Constitutional validity of demanding service charge was challenged in Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association v. Union of India and was negatived. Only contention raised by the petitioner was that it would not fall within the expression "caterers" under Sub-section 24 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994.