Exemption for food and drink sales did not extend to a restaurant-cum-bar serving liquor under the notification.

S.R.O. 28 exemption for sales of food and drink applied only to the establishments expressly covered by the notification and similar outlets serving Indian food preparations such as tea. Interpreting the exemption in light of the earlier S.R.O. 157, the HC held that it was intended for tandoors, lohs, dhabas, hotels and restaurants of that class. A restaurant-cum-bar did not fall within that category, and the word "drink" was limited to beverages like tea and other non-alcoholic drinks, not liquor. The petitioner was therefore not entitled to the exemption, and the assessment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's restaurant-cum-bar fell within the exemption granted by S.R.O. 28 dated 21st January, 1967 for sales of articles of food and drink by specified establishments.

Analysis: The exemption under S.R.O. 28 was confined to the establishments specified in the notification and to similar establishments serving Indian food preparations including tea. Reading the notification in the light of the earlier S.R.O. 157 dated 15th May, 1965, the Court held that the relief was intended for such establishments as tandoors, lohs, dhabas, hotels and restaurants of that class. The petitioner's establishment was not a restaurant simpliciter but a restaurant-cum-bar, and the word "drink" in the notification was construed as referring to beverages of the nature of tea and similar non-alcoholic drinks, not liquor.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the exemption under S.R.O. 28 and the assessment was upheld.

---