1979 (3) TMI 183 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the association running a hostel is liable to pay sales tax on the turnover of the mess in the hostel.
2. Whether the provision of food to the inmates of the hostel constitutes a sale under the Sales Tax Act.
3. Whether the hostel operation falls under the principle of mutuality and is exempt from sales tax.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras heard revisions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the liability of an association running a hostel to pay sales tax on mess turnover. The association, comprising officers of State and Central Governments and quasi-Government employees, was established in 1907 and registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. The association's objects included promoting camaraderie among members, providing allowances to deserving individuals, granting scholarships, and offering advances for professional studies. The hostel, named "Indian Officers' Association Hostel," operated separately with distinct rules and accounts. Sales tax authorities levied tax on the mess turnover in 1966-67 and 1971-72, which the association contested based on exemption claims similar to previous Supreme Court decisions.

The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal concluded that the hostel inmates functioned as a separate group with no distinct existence from its members, thus not engaging in sales under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal considered two perspectives: the legal position if the association ran the hostel or if the students managed it through a dividing system. Even if the association operated the hostel, the provision of food to students from members' families aimed at fostering camaraderie and aiding families, not constituting a sale. The Court cited a previous case involving a cooperative society providing food to members, ruling that no sale occurred as the society acted for members' benefit without transfer elements. In the present case, food provision to hostel inmates from members' families did not involve a sale.

Regarding the mutuality principle, if students managed the hostel using a dividing system, the association's role was limited to accommodation provision. The students collectively managed a mess and shared expenses, representing mutual service and amenity without sales elements. Even if the association maintained accounts for expense division, the nature of service remained non-commercial. Consequently, the Court held the assessments for the relevant years incorrect, dismissing the revision petitions with costs. The judgment affirmed that the hostel operation fell under the principle of mutuality, exempting it from sales tax liabilities.