<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (10) TMI 598 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104718</link>
    <description>Article 366(29A)(f) brought the supply of food and drink by restaurants and hotels within the concept of a sale for tax purposes, so the composite bill could not be split to exclude an alleged service element from the taxable supply. In residential hotels charging a combined lodging-and-boarding price, only the food-and-drink component was taxable, and uniform assessment required rules prescribing a segregation formula to avoid arbitrary treatment. Section 6 of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 retrospectively validated only State laws that already contained the necessary charging provision, so it did not sustain the pre-2 February 1983 levies in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh where such authority was absent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2026 17:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 598 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104718</link>
      <description>Article 366(29A)(f) brought the supply of food and drink by restaurants and hotels within the concept of a sale for tax purposes, so the composite bill could not be split to exclude an alleged service element from the taxable supply. In residential hotels charging a combined lodging-and-boarding price, only the food-and-drink component was taxable, and uniform assessment required rules prescribing a segregation formula to avoid arbitrary treatment. Section 6 of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 retrospectively validated only State laws that already contained the necessary charging provision, so it did not sustain the pre-2 February 1983 levies in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh where such authority was absent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>