Outdoor catering taxability turns on who actually serves the food and whether the activity is more than mere food preparation.

Taxability of ready-to-serve food depended on whether the appellant was acting as an outdoor caterer under the Finance Act or merely preparing food for sale at premises provided by another entity. The record indicated that the appellant prepared the food, while the other contracting party served it to customers, collected the consideration, and shared proceeds under the contract. Because the liability finding had been recorded without proper verification of who actually served the food, the factual basis for outdoor catering tax was incomplete. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the activity of preparing ready-to-serve food at the premises provided by another entity and the subsequent service of such food by that entity amounted to taxable outdoor catering service, and whether the demand could be sustained without verifying who actually served the food to customers.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the statutory meaning of outdoor caterer and caterer under the Finance Act. The relevant question was whether the appellant merely prepared food for sale or was itself engaged in catering service at a place other than its own. The material record and the agreement indicated that the food was prepared by the appellant but served to customers by the other contracting party, which also collected the consideration and shared it under the contract. The finding of liability had been recorded without proper verification of the appellant's case that it did not itself serve the food. In these circumstances, the factual basis necessary to determine taxability required fresh examination.

Conclusion: The demand could not be finally upheld on the existing record, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after granting an opportunity of hearing.

---