9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (5) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and style of Messrs. Manoranjan Bar and Restaurant at Canal Road, Jammu. He submitted his returns and he was made liable to tax by the sales tax authorities and two orders were passed by the authorities, one of these was for the accounting year 1962-63 and the other for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65. Both these orders were passed on 31st December, 1966, and, according to the petitioner, assessment of sales tax was made in respect of food-stuff supplied from the kitchen of the petitioner and not on liquor. Appeal was filed against these orders and in the revision before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the petitioner raised a contention to the effect that he was entitled to an exemption from the tax by virtue of S.R.O. 28 dated 21st January, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resumed that sales tax has been charged thereon and the amount so collected shall be deposited in the treasury on account of sales tax. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir." A perusal of this S.R.O. shows that there are some important features which are worthy of consideration and these are as follows: (i) exemption has been given in respect of sales of articles of food and drinks; (ii) such exemptions have not been given to all those who sell food and drinks but it has been confined to two categories of establishments: one of of these is to such establishments which are specifically enumerated such as of any halwai, or any other dealer who runs a tandoor, loh, dhabha, hotel, restaurant. The second category is of those who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the excise law. Lastly, he was of the opinion that the word "drink" used in the notification has to be construed so as to mean articles like lemonade, Fanta, Coco Cola, sherbat, shikanjbeer and soda and non-alcoholic drinks. The contention of Mr. Subash Dutt appearing for the petitioner is that the Commissioner has taken an erroneous view of the matter and, in view of S.R.O. 28, the petitioner was entitled to the exemption. His first submission in this connection is that although the petitioner was running a bar also but he was running a restaurant at the same time and was supplying food-stuff and, as such, was entitled to exemption. Secondly, it has been urged that the assessment which has been made was in respect of kitchen sales, that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 35 was "all other goods excepting goods in the Second Schedule". Now, in the Second Schedule, I may refer to item No. 68, which granted exemption to "articles of food and drink sold in boarding houses conducted for exclusive use of students or canteens run exclusively for the use of employees of factories or Armed forces". It appears that by this S.R.O. although exemption was granted to the canteens, etc., but no exemption was granted to dhabawallas, tandoorwallas, lohwallas, tea stallholders and halwais. Now, vide S.R.O. 28, which came into force on 21st January, 1967, exemption was granted to lohwallas, dhabawallas, tandoorwallas, etc. In my opinion, considering the background stated above and the language of the articles of food as suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
