1976 (2) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s the canteen sales. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the canteen sales are exempt from the levy of tax under G.O. Press No. 2238, Revenue, dated 1st September, 1964. Though the assessment years are different, the same question arises now in respect of all the assessment years. The assessing officer and the appellate authority rejected this claim of exemption on the ground that the Government Order invoked by them applies only to canteens run by individual employers, who are under a statutory obligation, but not to a case where it was run by three different companies jointly for their employees. On a further appeal, the Tribunal held that though the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the Government Order, still the t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tory obligation to run a canteen under rule 16 of the Madras Motor Transport Workers Rules, 1965, and M/s. Anamalai Engineering Co. is under a statutory obligation to run a canteen under rule 65 of the Madras Factories Rules. But M/s. Gounder & Co. is not under any statutory obligation to run a canteen. The canteen was run by the three companies without any motive for profit on a "no-profit and no-loss basis". It was only intended to provide canteen facilities to the employees of these three sister concerns and not a canteen run for general public. The Government Order, which is relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee, reads as follows: "G.O. Press No. 2238, Revenue, dated 1st September, 1964.-In exercise ......the Governor of M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terpretation relating to the first condition. But, in this case, M/s. Gounder & Co. was not under a statutory obligation to provide any canteen. Therefore, the canteen run by M/s. Gounder & Co. would not be entitled to any benefit under the Government Order. The learned counsel for the assessee then contended that even so, since the other conditions relating to 25 per cent contribution and running a canteen without profitmotive are satisfied, at least in respect of the sales referable to the two employers, who are under a statutory obligation, would have to be exempted. Even that is not possible, because it is the sales in the canteen that are exempt under the Government Order, if the conditions are satisfied. The sales referred to therein .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X