9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... among other things provides for service tax for the services rendered by outdoor caterers. 2. I heard Sri P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri John Varghese, Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondents. 3. "Service tax" was introduced on outdoor caterers by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2004 with effect from September 10, 2004. Since the petitioner is engaged in supply of food and beverages to air companies for service to passengers on board flights the Central Excise Department demanded service tax from the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the impugned notices on the ground that the petitioner is not liable to pay service tax. It is to be noted that there is no challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crafts for service to the passengers on board. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that supply of food and beverages will attract liability for service tax only when such supplies are made at a place other than normal business premises of the party and such supplies should be for a specific purpose or occasion. According to counsel, transactions that attract Service tax are supplies outside for any purpose or occasion like marriage, birthday, etc. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner's supply of food and beverages are on regular basis and petitioner's is not a case of supply for any specific purpose or occasion. I am unable to accept this contention because the "purpose" or "occasion" referred to in the definition clau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the petitioner referring to some earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, contended that the levy is harsh and is virtual sales tax for which central legislation is not permissible as the subject is covered by entry 54 of the State List in the VIIth Schedule to the constitution, the argument is not tenable by virtue of the direct decision of the Supreme Court above referred to in the same matter. I do not think there is any scope for the High Court to entertain the challenge against legislation, after the issue is decided by the Supreme Court. Moreover, pursuant to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterer's case [1980] 45 STC 212 and the decision in State of H.P. v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. [1972] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 50 per cent, of the charges is attributable to supply of goods eligible for exemption and balance charges collected are attributable to essentially service rendered by the outdoor caterer. In the circumstances, and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court above referred to, I find no scope for interference. It is also reported by the Additional Solicitor General that all other outdoor caterers supplying food to aircrafts are registered and are paying tax without dispute. Strangely, the petitioner has also started remitting tax after taking registration in Tamil Nadu though it later made representation claiming exemption in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The writ petitions are therefore devoid of any merit and are dismissed. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
