Cooked food tax liability turns on who sold the food and whether the premises qualify as a bar attached hotel.

Liability under Entry 57 turned on who actually sold or served the cooked food: where the restaurant in the hotel premises was run separately by Surendran, Hotel Amrutha was not taxable on that food. By contrast, cooked food sold or served in the restaurant within the hotel premises was treated as falling within Entry 57(ii) for a bar attached hotel, and the ordinary turnover limit did not apply to that category. The separate restaurant arrangement and licence conditions did not alter the statutory character of the food sales in the premises.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Hotel Amrutha was liable to be assessed on cooked food served in its premises when the restaurant was conducted by another person; (ii) whether the restaurant run by Surendran in the hotel premises was a bar attached hotel attracting Entry 57(ii) of the First Schedule.

Issue (i): Whether Hotel Amrutha was liable to be assessed on cooked food served in its premises when the restaurant was conducted by another person.

Analysis: Liability under Entry 57 depended on the person who sold or served the cooked food. The materials showed that the restaurant was run separately in the hotel premises by Surendran, and the food served in the hotel was the food cooked in that restaurant. The licence conditions and tourism guidelines did not establish that the hotel itself had to run the restaurant or that a violation of foreign liquor conditions could enlarge the hotel's tax liability.

Conclusion: Hotel Amrutha was not liable to tax on the cooked food served in the hotel.

Issue (ii): Whether the restaurant run by Surendran in the hotel premises was a bar attached hotel attracting Entry 57(ii) of the First Schedule.

Analysis: The restaurant was being conducted within the premises of Hotel Amrutha, which held an FL3 licence, and the cooked food was being sold or served there. Entry 57(ii) taxed cooked food sold or served in bar attached hotels and restaurants without reference to the turnover limit applicable to ordinary hotels and restaurants. The absence of a separate bar licence with the restaurant did not take it outside the statutory description when the food was sold in the hotel premises.

Conclusion: The restaurant was covered by Entry 57(ii) and the cooked food sold or served there was taxable without the turnover limit.

Final Conclusion: The common order of the Tribunal was sustained, with no basis to interfere in either set of revisions.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Entry 57, liability turns on whether cooked food is sold or served in a bar attached hotel or restaurant, and the turnover limit does not apply to such establishments; a hotel is not taxable for food sold by a separate restaurant merely because the restaurant operates within its premises.

---