Hotel's Room Service Tax Dispute: Sale of Goods vs. Service

The appellant-hotel, facing a service tax demand for food served in rooms, argued that it constituted a sale of goods, not a service, citing VAT charges on food and legal precedents. Emphasizing the absence of service elements in room service compared to a restaurant, they relied on a Board Circular and Tribunal judgment supporting their position. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the tax demand and entitling them to consequential benefits, based on the interpretation that serving food in hotel rooms is a sale of goods, not a taxable service.

---

---

Issues:
Whether the appellant-hotel, also providing restaurant service, is liable to service tax on the food served in the rooms under the head 'restaurant service'.

Analysis:

The appellant, engaged in providing short-term accommodation and restaurant service, faced a show cause notice for not paying service tax on food served to guests in hotel rooms. The Assistant Commissioner initially dropped the demand of service tax, but the Commissioner reviewed and allowed the appeal filed by the department, confirming the service tax demand.

The appellant argued that serving food in hotel rooms constitutes a sale of goods, not a service, as VAT was charged on the value of food. They relied on a Tribunal judgment stating that VAT and service tax cannot be levied on the same value. Additionally, they cited the exclusion of sale of goods (food) from the definition of 'service' under the Finance Act, 1994, and a Supreme Court judgment supporting the same.

Moreover, the appellant referenced a Board Circular clarifying that when food is served in a room, it is not liable for service tax. They highlighted a Tribunal case where it was held that delivering food to customers in hotel rooms is a sale and not a composite transaction like in a restaurant. The appellant emphasized that there is no element of service involved in delivering food from the hotel kitchen to guests in rooms, unlike in a restaurant where service elements like music and ambience are present.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, citing the Board Circular from 2011. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was entitled to consequential benefits as per the law.

In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the interpretation of whether serving food in hotel rooms constitutes a sale of goods or a service, with the Tribunal ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on legal provisions and precedents.

---