STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MILKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal, along with the 38 special appeals mentioned in the schedule 'a' are directed against a common order of the learned single Judge dated 22nd of July, 1991 whereby while allowing the Writ petitions, the learned single Judge quashed the impugned assessment orders levying the sales tax on the sale of eatables in the hotel/restaurants.

(2.) FOR convenient disposal of these appeals, the facts of D. B. Special Appeal (writ) No. 346/91 are taken into consideration.

(3.) MR. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non- petitioner-appellants has urged that the learned Single Judge has erred in not reconsidering Rambagh Hotels Private Ltd's. case (supra), which is not a Correct law since while giving the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as they existed prior to 1. 4. 1987. It has been urged that the decision of the Supreme Court rendered on review application filed in Northern India Cater's (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governer of Delhi (2) and even the learned Single Judge has not considered a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Govind Ram Vs. State (3) to which Hon'ble MR. Justice M. B. Sharma (as he then was) was also a party. He has referred to various provisions of law including clause 29-A to Article 366 of the Constitution, Section 3, 2 (0), 2 (t) and 2 (f) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. MR. Mehta has also contended that after the foundation of the judgments in Associated Hotels ( ) and Northern India Caterer's case was knocked out by the relevant provisions of State Laws always deemed to include within the ambit, a tax on the supply by way of or as part of any service etc. of goods being food or any other articles for human consumption. He has prayed that the impugned order of learned Single Judge may be set aside and the matter may be decided in terms of the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in Northern India Caterer's Ltd. case (supra ).