TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (11) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in S.T.R. No. 29 of 1979 is 1st July, 1966 to 30th June, 1967. Incidentally, we may mention that S.T.R. No. 28 of 1979 arises from the decision of the Sales Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 675 of 1972 and S.T.R. No. 29 of 1979 arises from the decision of the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 676 of 1972. We propose to refer to the said periods under assessment as "the relevant periods". The question submitted to us for determination in these two references is as follows: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the customers of the appellant had agreed to purchase snacks and soda water along with liquor from the respondent?" 2.. During the relevant periods the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... free of charge. He proceeded on the footing that even though the respondent might he under an obligation to supply snacks and soda water to its customers to whom liquor was supplied, yet it was open to the respondent to supply snacks and soda water free of charge. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the claim of the respondent that the price of snacks and soda water should be deducted from the turnover of sales of liquor and wines. The respondent preferred appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who dismissed the same, The order of the Assistant Commissioner does, however, show that before him the respondent-dealer had explained that along with the bills which showed the composite amount charged for liquor and wines as well as snac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is the correctness of this decision which is sought to be tested before us by way of the aforestated question. 3.. The only submission made by Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the Commissioner, before us was that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it must be held that snacks and soda water were served gratis free of charge to the customers of the respondent to whom liquor and wines were supplied at the bar run by the respondent. In our view, this submission is devoid of merit. The respondent obviously was running a hotel and a bar in it with a view to make profit. Whatever was supplied to the customers could normally be presumed to have been supplied for a price or consideration and in view of this, it would be utterly ill....