TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (8) TMI 380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he dealer is a partnership firm. It has a canteen where different kinds of sweets and tiffins are supplied for payment by the dealer. For the year 1979-80, the dealer was being assessed under section 12(4) of the Act where its contention was that the dominant object was rendering service and so the transactions are not exigible to tax under the Act. The Sales Tax Officer, however, held that the dominant object was sale of goods and not service. The dealer preferred first appeal where the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment. In second appeal before the Tribunal, reliance was placed on the decision reported in [1978] 42 STC 386 (SC) [Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi] and it was submitted that the domin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was subject-matter of review in the decision reported in [1980] 45 STC 212 [Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi]. It was observed: "What were the considerations on which this Court held that the transaction was not a sale? The court said, and this was emphasised in no small degree, that the supply and service of food to a customer to be eaten in the restaurant was not a sale for the reason that he was merely entitled to eat the food served to him and not to remove and carry away the unconsumed portion of the food. Had that amounted to a sale, the unconsumed portion would have belonged to the customer to take away and dispose of as he pleased. Besides, the court noted, there were other amenities and services of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts, in both the cases, the assessment orders were quashed and the matters were remanded back to the Sales Tax Officer for assessment in accordance with law in the light of observations made in those decisions. 4.. The dominant object of the dealer is an inference on facts of a case to find whether the transaction was sale or service. The finding of the taxing authorities under the Act in that respect would be final. The scope of interference in advisory jurisdiction is limited in respect of a finding of fact and on a question of law only advice is to be given. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is wider to render findings of facts. Accordingly, in this case, there is no scope for interference that dominant object was sale and not service.....