1995 (12) TMI 371 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellants, who run restaurants, can be regarded as a manufacturing unit within the meaning of entry No. 16-B of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act.
2. Whether the appellants are liable to the incidence of entry tax for the ingredients used in their edible items.
3. The distinction between the activities carried out by the appellants and those of a typical restaurant.
4. The applicability of judicial decisions related to similar activities under different tax laws.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Manufacturing Unit Classification:
The core issue is whether the appellants, who operate restaurants and are known for specialized sweet and edible preparations, qualify as a manufacturing unit under entry No. 16-B of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act. The appellants argued that their activities, regardless of scale, are akin to cooking and thus should not be classified as manufacturing. However, the court observed that the appellants' activities involve large-scale commercial production and sale, distinguishing them from mere cooking. The court emphasized that the legislative intent, post-amendment, focuses on the scale and volume of turnover, implying that enterprises with a turnover of Rs. 10 lakhs and above fall within the ambit of a manufacturing unit.

2. Liability to Entry Tax:
The appellants contended that their business should not attract entry tax as their activities do not constitute manufacturing. The court, however, found that the appellants' large-scale commercial activities, including the production and sale of edible items, meet the criteria for a manufacturing unit as defined post-amendment. Consequently, the ingredients used in their production are subject to entry tax under entry No. 16-B.

3. Distinction from Typical Restaurant Activities:
The appellants' advocate argued that their activities are similar to those carried out in any household kitchen but on a larger scale. The court rejected this argument, noting that the appellants' operations involve significant commercial production and sale, distinguishing them from a typical restaurant. The court acknowledged that while some activities within the restaurant might be exempt, the large-scale commercial sale of products necessitates a different classification.

4. Applicability of Judicial Decisions:
The appellants relied on several judicial decisions, including those from the Karnataka, Kerala, and Madras High Courts, which had previously ruled that similar activities did not constitute manufacturing. However, the court distinguished these cases, noting that they were decided under different tax laws (Income-tax Act, Sales Tax Act) and that the present statute (Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act) has a broader and more comprehensive definition of manufacturing. The court emphasized that the financial parameters and the scale of operations are the primary considerations under the current statute.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellants' large-scale commercial production and sale of edible items classify them as a manufacturing unit under entry No. 16-B. However, the court also recognized the need to distinguish between the turnover from restaurant sales and commercial sales. The assessing authority was directed to reassess the tax incidence, exempting the turnover confined to the restaurant premises while taxing the commercially marketed products. The appeals were partially allowed, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →