LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-290

HOTEL SARAVANA BHAVAN Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

Decided On October 06, 2009
HOTEL SARAVANA BHAVAN Appellant
V/S
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS similar issues are arising for consideration in all the four writ petitions and since the reliefs sought for are also similar in nature, a common order is passed by this Court, in the above writ petitions.

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered dealer, registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Various food items and drinks are served in the hotels and restaurants, in the name of the petitioner, namely, M/s.Hotel Saravana Bhavan. Out door catering is also undertaken by the petitioner. It also prepares and serves ready to eat food items, like idly, dosai, vadai, noodles, fried rice, meals, cold and hot beverages, soft drinks, ice creams, mineral water, etc. Generally, the food items and drinks are made ready and served, based on the orders placed by the customers. Only items like packaged bottled drinks and ice creams, purchased from local dealers, are kept in ready form.

(3.) IT has been further stated that Section 3-D, which was in existence upto 31.3.2002, made no distinction between the food and drinks that was sold as branded items and those that were sold as unbranded items. However, by an amendment to Section 3-D, the difference between branded and unbranded items had been introduced. Accordingly, the respondent, by relying on the subsequent amendment, had treated the food and drinks sold by the petitioner, during the period prior to 1.4.2002, as branded food and drinks and thereby, he had proposed to levy higher rate of tax at 16%. Even after the amendment to Section 3-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, with effect from 1.4.2002, it cannot be said that the food and drinks sold by the petitioner would come under the category of branded items. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the respondent proposing to levy the higher rate of sales tax, on the food and drinks items sold by the petitioner, at 16%, is arbitrary, illegal and void.