LAWS(ST)-1997-5-3

GARDEN RESTAURANT Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On May 16, 1997
Garden Restaurant Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals are filed by the different appellants against the orders of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner(CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, arising out of the concerned Commercial Tax Officer's assessment orders. As the appeals involve common issues, they are taken up together for disposal by way of a common order. The particulars of the appeals are as follows:

(2.) THE point for consideration is, whether the disputed turnovers as above are liable to tax under the A.P.G.S.T. Act and if so, as to what is the correct rate applicable in T.A. No. 774/96 to a turnover of Rs. 3,70,852 -00 relating to firewood purchases?

(3.) (i). Wages Recovered from employees: - -The appellant in T.A. No. 661/96 recovered Rs. 64,680/ - representing value of food given to workers in the Hotel as part of Wages according to norms fixed by the Government under Minimum Wages Act 1948. This amount was treated by the revising authority as 'sale of food' and taxed at 5% + Addl.Charge. The fact that recoveries were made as a statutory obligation under the Minimum Wages Act has not been disputed by the revising authority. He relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hotel Siddhartha v. State of A.P. (T.A. No. 486/92 dated 25th October, 1994), and concluded that after the amendment to Section 2(n) defining 'sale' and introduction of Section 5 -C in the APGST Act, any supply 'by way of or 'as part of any services or in any manner what -so -ever of goods or food for human consumption where such supply is for cash or deferred payment, shall be treated as a 'sale'. According to him, the appellant supplied food to its workers and realised its price as part of business activity. To the extent of such supply, the worker is 'on par' with customer. He refused to follow the principle laid down by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Wood Lands Hotel (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka : (1995) 97 STC 251, for the reason that the definition of 'sale' under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is different from that under the A.P.G.S.T. Act.