Dominant purpose test governs food supply taxability, and non-collection of tax does not defeat dealer liability.

Supply of sweets and tiffins was treated as a sale of goods where the dominant object of the transaction, on the facts, was sale rather than mere service. The taxing authorities' factual finding on dominant character was entitled to finality in reference jurisdiction. The exemption under section 6(2) of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 applied only to composite transactions within its scope and did not protect a transaction whose dominant nature was sale. Taxability also was not defeated by the dealer's failure to collect tax from customers, since liability under the charging provision remained on the dealer. The transaction was therefore exigible to tax.

---

---

Issues: Whether the supply of sweets and tiffins by the dealer was a sale of goods or merely rendering of service, and whether tax was exigible even if the dealer had not realised tax from customers.

Analysis: The dominant object of the transaction had to be determined on the facts. Supply of food in an eating house is ordinarily a sale, and the taxing authorities' factual finding on dominant object was entitled to finality in reference jurisdiction. The exemption under section 6(2) of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 applied only to transactions covered by that provision, namely composite supplies involving service and food supply within its scope. It did not protect transactions whose dominant character was sale. Since liability under the charging provision rested on the dealer, non-collection of tax could not defeat taxability where the transaction was found to be a sale.

Conclusion: The transaction was exigible to tax, and the dealer's failure to realise tax did not alter that liability.

---