Strict construction of concessional sales tax law excludes catering-like food sales from unamended coverage; later amendment is not retrospective.

A concessional sales tax provision for food and drinks was construed strictly, and sales made to industrial canteens, hospitals, defence establishments and similar facilities were held not to fall within "any other eating house" under the unamended law. The later amendment to the provision, which expanded coverage to ready-to-eat foods and catering-related activities, was treated as a substantive change and not as a clarificatory measure; it therefore did not apply retrospectively to earlier assessment years. Departmental clarifications and prior appellate orders could not override the statute, and definitions drawn from other enactments were rejected as inapplicable to the Act's own context.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sale of food and drinks by the assessee in industrial canteens, hospitals, defence establishments and similar facilities fell within "any other eating house" under Section 3-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the pre-amendment period; (ii) Whether the amendment to Section 3-D with effect from 01.04.2002 was clarificatory or retrospective so as to apply to the assessment years in question; (iii) Whether departmental clarifications and earlier appellate orders in the assessee's own case governed the issue; (iv) Whether the meaning of "caterer" from other enactments could be imported into the Act.

Issue (i): Whether sale of food and drinks by the assessee in industrial canteens, hospitals, defence establishments and similar facilities fell within "any other eating house" under Section 3-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the pre-amendment period.

Analysis: Section 3-D, as it then stood, was a stand-alone concessional provision for the first point of sale of food and drinks in hotels, restaurants, sweet stalls and any other eating houses. The provision was held to require strict construction because it formed part of a fiscal statute. The phrase "any other eating house" had to be read conjunctively with the named establishments and in relation to the place of first sale. Sales by the assessee to establishments that merely hosted consumption by employees or visitors did not amount to sales in such eating houses.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the concessional rate under the unamended Section 3-D.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment to Section 3-D with effect from 01.04.2002 was clarificatory or retrospective so as to apply to the assessment years in question.

Analysis: The amended provision introduced a materially different scheme, including ready-to-eat unbranded foods and express reference to caterers, indoor and outdoor catering, clubs and other establishments. The change was substantive and not merely verbal. The legislative choice to give effect from 01.04.2002 showed that the amendment could not be carried further back to earlier assessment years.

Conclusion: The amendment was not clarificatory or retrospectively applicable to the assessment years in dispute.

Issue (iii): Whether departmental clarifications and earlier appellate orders in the assessee's own case governed the issue.

Analysis: Clarifications issued on the basis of particular facts could not be universally applied regardless of the actual transaction. Such circulars or clarifications could not override the statute or the law declared by the Court. Earlier unchallenged orders for different assessment years did not prevent the revenue from contesting the legal issue in subsequent years.

Conclusion: The assessee could not rely on departmental clarifications or earlier appellate orders to secure relief.

Issue (iv): Whether the meaning of "caterer" from other enactments could be imported into the Act.

Analysis: Definitions in other statutes cannot be transplanted into the TNGST Act when the statutory context is different. The expression had to be construed in the setting of Section 3-D itself and not by borrowing meanings from unrelated enactments.

Conclusion: The proposed external definitions were inapplicable.

Final Conclusion: The substantial questions of law were answered against the assessee, and the tax case revisions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A concessional fiscal provision must be strictly construed according to its own language, and a later substantive amendment cannot be treated as clarificatory or carried back in time unless the legislature clearly so provides.

---