<?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>2000 (11) TMI 1065 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105065</link>
    <description>Food and drink supplied in a hotel restaurant were treated as goods transferred to customers for price, bringing the transaction within the definition of sale under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The Act&#039;s charging and rate provisions were read harmoniously, and section 4(1)(c) was understood to show that food or drink served for consumption in a hotel or restaurant was intended to bear tax. Earlier authority under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi, did not control because the 1975 Act contained a different statutory scheme with an express provision addressing restaurant supplies. The supply in the appellants&#039; restaurant was therefore a taxable sale, and the challenge to sales tax liability failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142104" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 1065 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105065</link>
      <description>Food and drink supplied in a hotel restaurant were treated as goods transferred to customers for price, bringing the transaction within the definition of sale under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The Act&#039;s charging and rate provisions were read harmoniously, and section 4(1)(c) was understood to show that food or drink served for consumption in a hotel or restaurant was intended to bear tax. Earlier authority under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi, did not control because the 1975 Act contained a different statutory scheme with an express provision addressing restaurant supplies. The supply in the appellants&#039; restaurant was therefore a taxable sale, and the challenge to sales tax liability failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>