TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant's supply of food to corporate clients was correctly classified as a supply of service falling under tariff heading 996337 and taxable under the residual entry of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), instead of being treated as restaurant service taxable at 5%.
Analysis: The appellant's activity was examined in the light of the contractual arrangements with corporate clients and partner kitchens, the extent of involvement in menu finalisation, quality control, hygiene checks, delivery arrangements, and serving arrangements. On those facts, the supply was held not to be a mere aggregation or sale of goods, but a supply of food by way of service within paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The activity was found not to answer the description of restaurant service, since there was no restaurant, eating joint, mess, or canteen premise shown to exist for the supply. The dominant intention test was also applied and was held not to alter the character of the supply, because the principal supply remained food service under tariff heading 996337. As the activity did not fall within entries 7(i) to 7(v) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), the residual entry 7(vi) was applied, attracting 18% GST.
Conclusion: The classification adopted by the appellate authority was upheld, and the appellant's challenge to the 18% tax treatment failed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
