Amended definition of sale under sales tax law kept restaurant receipts taxable for earlier assessment periods.

The amended definition of "sale" and section 26A of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 were treated as decisive for restaurant receipts from food and drink supplies for earlier quarters. The incidental-service argument was not examined further because the relevant assessment periods preceded the date referred to in section 26A(2)(a). On that basis, the taxpayer could not avoid assessment for those periods, and the disputed assessments and consequential proceedings remained in force.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant's restaurant receipts from supply of food and drinks for the disputed quarters ending on 31 March 1974, 31 March 1975, 31 March 1976 and 31 March 1977 were taxable under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 in view of section 26A and the amended definition of "sale".

Analysis: The application challenged the assessments on the footing that the restaurant merely rendered services and amenities and that supply of food and drinks was only incidental. The Tribunal held that, in view of section 26A inserted with effect from 1 October 1983 and the amended definition of "sale" in section 2(g)(iii), it was unnecessary to examine the incidental-supply argument. On the then prevailing definition of sale read with section 26A, the applicant could not avoid assessment for the disputed periods, which were earlier than the date referred to in section 26A(2)(a). The Tribunal also noted that the legal position had already been considered in its earlier decision.

Conclusion: The applicant remained liable to assessment to tax for the disputed quarters and the challenge to the assessments failed.

Final Conclusion: The transfer application did not succeed and the impugned assessments and consequential certificate proceedings were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the amended statutory definition of sale and the specific saving or transitional provision do not extend to the relevant earlier period, tax liability cannot be avoided on the plea that the supply was merely incidental to restaurant service.

---