# • NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS (INDIA) LTD v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI

- **Citation:** [1979] 1 S.C.R. 557
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-09-07
- **Bench:** P. N. Bhagwati, V. D. Tulzapurkar, R. S. Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/northern-india-caterers-india-ltd-v-lt-governor-of-delhi-7594
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

B
Bengal Fi11ance (Sales Tax) Act 1941 (as extended to the Union Territory
-0/ Delhi)--Service of meals to non-residents in a restaurant in a hoter.-SaJe,y
Tax-If payable on price charged for meals.
The appellant runs a hotel in which meals are served to non-residents
also in the restaurant located in the hotel. The sales tax authorities treal<d
a portion 9f the receipts M representing the price Of foodstuffs served and
C
levied tax. The High Court affirmed the view of tho sales tax authorities.
On th:. question whether the transaction constituted sale of foodstuffs.
Allowing the appeals
lll~LD: 1. Service of meals W non~residents in the restaurant of the appcl~
lant is not taxable under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941, as extended. D
to the Union Territory of Delhi. This is so whether a charge is imposed
for the meal as a whole or according to the dishes separately ordered. [562 F·
G]
2. In State of Puniab v. Mjs. Associated Hotels of India [1972] 2 SCR 937
this Court held that there was no sale when food and drink were supplied
to guests residing in the hotel. The Court pointed out that the supply of meals
was essentially in the nature of a service provided to the guests and coulcl
not be identified as a transaction of sale. Tb.is Court 'declined to accept
the position that the Revenue was entitled to split up the transaction into
two parts, one of service and the other of sale of foodstuffs. If that be true
in respect of hotels, a similar approach seems to be called for on principle
in the case of restaurants.
Like the hotelier, a restaurateur provides many
-- services in addition to the supply of food.
He provides furniture and furnishings, linen, crockery and cutlery, and he may add music, an area for floor
dancing and in some cases a floor show. The classical legal view being
that a number of services are concomitantly provided by way of hospitality,
the supply of meals must be regarded as ministering to a bodily want or to
the satisfaction of a human need. No reason hae been shown for preferring
any other view. (562 B, 560 F-G, 562 CJ
E
F
State of Puniab v. Mis. Associated Hotels of India I,td. [1972] 2 SCR 937
G
applied.
M Js. Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Sinila v.
Excise
and
Taxation
Officer Simla AIR 1961 Punjab 449 not "Jlproved.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxn1i Narain Tt1ndon <ind A11othtr
AIR 1970 Delhi 244 not approved.
Crisp v. Pratt [1639] Cro. Car 549, Parker v. Flint (1699] 12 Mod. 254
Nt!wton v. Trigg 3 Mod. 327, Sauttderson v. Rowles 4 Burr. 2065 Elecla B.
H
A
·B
c
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 1 S.C.R.
klerrill v. Jan1es W. Hodson 1915-B L.R.A. 481, and Mary Nisky v. Childr
Company 50 A.LR. 227 referred to.

## Text

•
NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS (INDIA) LTD.
v.
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI
September 7, 1978
557
A
[P. N. BHAGWATI, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.)
B
Bengal Fi11ance (Sales Tax) Act 1941 (as extended to the Union Territory
-0/ Delhi)--Service of meals to non-residents in a restaurant in a hoter.-SaJe,y
Tax-If payable on price charged for meals.
The appellant runs a hotel in which meals are served to non-residents
also in the restaurant located in the hotel. The sales tax authorities treal<d
a portion 9f the receipts M representing the price Of foodstuffs served and
C
levied tax. The High Court affirmed the view of tho sales tax authorities.
On th:. question whether the transaction constituted sale of foodstuffs.
Allowing the appeals
lll~LD: 1. Service of meals W non~residents in the restaurant of the appcl~
lant is not taxable under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941, as extended. D
to the Union Territory of Delhi. This is so whether a charge is imposed
for the meal as a whole or according to the dishes separately ordered. [562 F·
G]
2. In State of Puniab v. Mjs. Associated Hotels of India [1972] 2 SCR 937
this Court held that there was no sale when food and drink were supplied
to guests residing in the hotel. The Court pointed out that the supply of meals
was essentially in the nature of a service provided to the guests and coulcl
not be identified as a transaction of sale. Tb.is Court 'declined to accept
the position that the Revenue was entitled to split up the transaction into
two parts, one of service and the other of sale of foodstuffs. If that be true
in respect of hotels, a similar approach seems to be called for on principle
in the case of restaurants.
Like the hotelier, a restaurateur provides many
-- services in addition to the supply of food.
He provides furniture and furnishings, linen, crockery and cutlery, and he may add music, an area for floor
dancing and in some cases a floor show. The classical legal view being
that a number of services are concomitantly provided by way of hospitality,
the supply of meals must be regarded as ministering to a bodily want or to
the satisfaction of a human need. No reason hae been shown for preferring
any other view. (562 B, 560 F-G, 562 CJ
E
F
State of Puniab v. Mis. Associated Hotels of India I,td. [1972] 2 SCR 937
G
applied.
M Js. Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Sinila v.
Excise
and
Taxation
Officer Simla AIR 1961 Punjab 449 not "Jlproved.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxn1i Narain Tt1ndon <ind A11othtr
AIR 1970 Delhi 244 not approved.
Crisp v. Pratt [1639] Cro. Car 549, Parker v. Flint (1699] 12 Mod. 254
Nt!wton v. Trigg 3 Mod. 327, Sauttderson v. Rowles 4 Burr. 2065 Elecla B.
H
A
·B
c
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 1 S.C.R.
klerrill v. Jan1es W. Hodson 1915-B L.R.A. 481, and Mary Nisky v. Childr
Company 50 A.LR. 227 referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1768-1769/,
72.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
15-7-1971 of the Delhi High Court in Sales Tax Reference No. 8 of
1969.
F. S. Nariman, (In CA 1768/72), V. S. Desai
(in C.A. 1769).
M. C. Bhandare (C.A. 1768/72)
and Mrs. S. /Jlumdare and Miss
M. Poduval for the Appellants.
P. A. Francis, R. N. Sachthey and Miss A. Subhashini for the
Respondent.
,,;: .
",,'rY. S. Chita/e, Vinay Bhasin, A. K. Srivastava and Vineet Kumar
.. 'tffor the Interveners.
di.p"
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
F
PATHAK, J.
This and the connected appeal are directed against
the judgment of the Higb Court of Delhi disposing of a reference made
to it under section 21 (3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax)
Act,
1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi on the following
question:-
"Whether the service of meals to casual visitors in the
Restaurant is taxable as a sale :
(i) when charges arc lumpsum per meal or
(ii) when they are calculated per dish ?"
The High Court has answered the question in the affirmative.
The appellant runs a hotel in which lodging and meals are provided on "inclusive terms" to residents. Meals are served
to nonresidents also in the restaurant located in the hotel. In the assessment
proceedings for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 under the
G
Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the appellant contended that
the service of meals to residents and non-residents
could not be
regarded as a sale and therefore sales tax could not be levied in respect thereof. The contention was rejected by the Sales Tax authorities,
who treated a portion of the receipts from the residents and nonresidents as representing the price of the foodstuffs served.
At the
II
instance of the appellant, the Higb Court called for a statement of the
case on two questions. One was whether the supply of meals to
residents, who paid a single all-inclusive charge for all services in the
•
.a
!'. '
. ·.· . '.·.··
~''·
.
GI:~
•
•
• •
J.
J
NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS v. LT. GOVERNOR (Pathak,!.) 559
hotel, including board, was exigible to sales tax. The second was the
question set forth above. The High Court answered the first question
in favour of the appellant and the second against it. And now these
appeals by special leave.
Tax is payable by a dealer under section 4 of the Bengal Finance
(Sales Tax) Act, 1941 on sales effected by him, and the expression
"sale" has been defined by section 2 (g) of the Act to mean "any
transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or other
v~luable consideration including a transfer of properly in goods
involved in the execution of a contract ....... ". The
question is
whether in the case of non-residents the service of meals by the appellant in the restaurant constitutes a sale of foodstuffs. It appears to us
that after the view taken by this Court in State of Punjab v. MI s Associated Hotels of India Ltd.,(1) the approach to the question before us
is clearly indicated .
This is a case where the origin and historical development of an
institution has profoundly influenced the nature and incidents it
possesses in law. In the case of an hotelier this Court proceeded on
the footing that his position in law was assimilable to that of an innkeeper. At common law an innkeeper was a person
who
received
travellers and provided lodging and necessaries for them and
their
attendants and employed servants for this purpose and for the protection of travellers lodging in his inn and of their goods("). It was hospitality that he offered, and the many facilities that constituted the
components of that hospitality determined the legal character of the
transactions flowing from them. Long ago, in Crisp v. Pratt(') it was
pointed out that innkeepers do not get their living by buying and selling
and that although they buy provisions to be spent in their house, they
do not sell them but what they do is to "utter" them. "Their gain", it
was added, "is not only by uttering of their commodities, but for the
attendance of their servants, and for the furniture of their house, rooms,
and loggings, for their guests ...... ". This test went to the root, and
w~ find it repeated in Parker v. Flint.(') In Newton v. Trigg(') Holt,
C.J., defined the true status of an inn-keeper by reference to the services
afforded by him, that he was an "hos pita tor", and was "not paid upon
the account of the intrinsic value pf his provisions, but for
other
reasons : the recompence he receives, is for care and pains, and for
protection and security. . . . . . . . . . . but the end of an inn-keeper in
(I) [l972j 2 S. C. R. 937.
(2) Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd l'dn. Vol. 21 p. 442 paras 93?.
(3) [1639!
Cro. Car. 549.
(4) [1699]
12 Mod 254.
(5) 3 Mod. 327.
2-549SCil78
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
R
A
B
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 1 S.C.R.
his buying, is not to sell, but only a part of the accommodation be
is bound to prepare for bis guests." And for the purpose of the question
betore us it would be relevant to quote Professor Beale(") :
''As an inu-keeper docs uot lease his rooms, so he does
not sell the food be supplies to the guest. It is his duty to
supply such food as the guest needs, and the corresponding
right of the guest is to consume the food he needs, and to
take no more. Having finished his meal, be has no right to
take food from the table, even the uneaten portion of food
supplied to him, nor can be claim a certain portion of food
as bis own to bll banded over to another in case he chooses
C
not to consume it himself. The title to food never passes as a
result of an ordinary transaction of supplying food
to a
guest."
D
E
F
G
n
Having proper regard to those particular considerations, it is not
surprising that the principle was extended in England to the service of
food at eating places or restaurants. The keeper of an eating house, or
victualler, was regarded fundamentally as providing
sustenance
to
those who ordered food to eat in the premises. That eminent and
learned Judge, Lord Mansfield, saw no distinction, in Saunderson v.
Rowles('), between an innkeeper and a victualler. He observed :-
"The analogy between the two cases of an inn-keeper and
a victualler is so strong that it cannot be got over. And we
are all clear that this man (victualler) is not within these
laws; upon the authority of a determined case of an innkeeper, and also upon the reason of the thing ....... He
buys only to spend in his house, and when he utters it again
it is attended with many circumstances additional to the
mere selling price."
Like the hotelier, a restaurateur provides many services in addition to
the supply of food. He provides furniture
and furnishings,
linen,
crockery and cutlery, and in the eating places of today he may add
music and a specially provided area for floor dancing and in some
cases a floor show. The view taken by the English law found acceptance on American soil, and after some desultory dissent initially in
certain states it very soon became firmly established as the general
view of the law. The first edition of American Jurisprudence sets(')
forth the statement of the law in that regard, but we may go to the
case itself, Electa B. Merrill v. James W. Hodson('), from which the
(I) Inn-keeper.< & Hotels, para 169.
\2) 4 Burr. 2065.
(3) Vol. 46 p. 207 para 13.
t4) 1915-B L.R.A. 481.
•
'
..
;
I
'
NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS V. LT. GOVERNOR (Pathak, J.) 561
statement has been derived. Holding that the supply of food or drink
to customers did uot partake of the character of a sale of goods, the
Court commented :-
"The essence of it is not an agreement for the transfer of
the general property of the food or drink placed at the command of the customer for the satisfaction of his desires, or
actually appropriated by him in the process of
appeasing
his appetite or thirst.
The customer does not become the
owner of the food set before him, or of that portion which
is carved for his use, or of that which finds a place upon his
plate, or in side dishes set about it. No designated portion
becomes his. He is privileged to eat, and that is all. The uneaten food is not his. He cannot do what he pleases with it.
That which is set before him or placed at his command is
provided to enable him to satisfy his immediate wants, and
for no other purpose. He may satisfy those wants; bnt there
he must stop. He may not turn over unconsumed portions to
others at his pleasure, or carry away such portions. The true
essence of the transaction is service in the satisfaction of a
human need or desire,-ministry to a bodily want. A necessary incident of this service or ministry is the consumption
of the food required. This consumption involves
destruction, and nothing remains of what i~ consun1ed to which
the right of property can be said to attach. Before consumption title does not pass; after consumption there remains
nothing to become the subject of title. What the customer
pays for is a right to satisfy his appetite by the process of
destruction. What he thus pays for includes more than the
price of the food as such. It includes all that enters into
the conception of service, and with it no small factor of
direct personal service. It does not contemplate the transfer
of the general property in the food supplied as a factor in
the service rendered."
A
B
c
D
E
F
Subsequent cases drew on these observations, notably Mary Nisky v.
Childs Company. (1) The position was radically
altered
in
the
G
United States by the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code,
which provides in effect that the serving for valne of food or drink
to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere constitutes a
· sale. Nonetheless it is affirmed in the second edition of American
Jurisprudence(') that where the Code does not operate, "in general
the pre-Code distinction between a contract for sale and one for the
H
giving of services should continue."
(1) SO A.L.R. 227.
(2) Vol. 67 p. 142 .P•ra 33,
A
B
c
D
K
F
G
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 1 S.C.R.
It bas already been noticed that in regard to hotels this Court bas
in Mis. Associated Hotels of India Limited (supra)
adopted
the
concept of the English Jaw that there is no sale when food and drink
are supplied to guests residing in the hotel. The Court pointed out
that the supply of meals was essentially in the nature of a service
provided to them and could not be iden!ified as a transaction of sale.
The Court declined to accept the proposition that the Revenue was
entitled to split up the transaction into two parts, one of service and
the other of sale of foodstuffs. If that be true in respect of hotels, a
similar approach seems to be called for on principle in the case af
restaurants. No reason has been shown to us for preferring any other.
The classical legal view being that a number of services arc concomitantly provided by way of hospitality, the supply of meals must
be regarded as ministering to a bodily want or to the satisfaction of
a human need. What has been said in Electa B. Merrill (supra)
appears to be as much applicable to restaurants in India as it does
elsewhere. It has not been proved that any different view should be
taken, either at common law, in usage or under statute.
It was urged for the respondent that in Associated Hotels of India
Ltd. (supra) this Court drew a distinction between the case of meals
supplied to a resident in a hotel and those served to a customer in a
restaurant. We are unable to find any proposition of law laid down
by the court there whi'ch could lead to that inference. We may point
out that in the view which appeals to us we find ourselves unable to
agree with the observations to the contrary made by the
Punjab
High Court in M/s. Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Simla v. Excise
and Taxation Officer, Simla(') and by the Delhi High Court in
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Laxmi Narain
Tandon and
another. (') .
In the result, we hold that the service of meals to visitors in the
restaurant of the appellant is not taxable under the Bengal Finance
(Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi,
and this is so whether a charge is imposed for the meal as a whole
or according to the dishes separately ordered.
In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
N.V.K.
(1) A. I. R. 1966 Punjab 449.
(2) A, I. R. 1970 Delhi 244.
Appeals allowed.
•