A C T O JAIPUR Vs. BIKANER HOTEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the department in accordance with the newly substituted sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, as amended by the Amendment Act of 1980 The only question for decision is whether a "thal" containing entire meal sold by the assessee as a composite unit falls within the ambit of the notification No F. 5 (16)-FDCT/69-3 dated 8. 3. 69, so that the individual items constituting the meal are not required to be separated for determining the tax liability of these constituents separately. The material facts are stated hereafter.

(2.) THE petitioner carries on the business of selling meals to customers in "thal" for which the rate was Rs. 1. 80p. per meal during the relevant assessment periods of 1968-69 and 1969-70. THE assessing authority came to the conclusion that supply of meals in "thais" fell within the ambit of the aforesaid notification dated 8. 3. 69, and was, therefore, to be taxed accordingly. THE assessee being aggrieved by that order preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority. THEreafter, the assessee filed a revision before the Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that the meal served in "thal" by the assessee consisted of rice, dal, chapati, vegetable cutrry, papper and onions for which a sum of Rs. 1. 80p. was charged per "thal"; and since some of these items were individually exempted from tax, sale of the same as a constituent of the meal was not taxable. THE Tribunal after holding that the sale made by the assessee was of a meal served in a "thal", further held that several constituents of this meal being exempt from tax had to be excluded while assessing the tax payable on the meals. THE case was, therefore, remanded to the assessing authority by the Tribunal for a fresh assessment in this manner. Aggrieved by the view taken by the Tribunal, a reference was made to this court at the department instance for deciding the aforesaid question of law. During the pendency of this reference, a new Sec. 15 was substituted in the Act as a result of which this matter is being heard and decided as a revision against the Tribunal's order.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision is allowed in. the aforesaid manner. No order as to costs. .