Sabareesh Pillay | School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus | 24th September 2020
Federation Of Hotel And Restaurant Associations Of India Vs Union Of India
FACTS:
In this case, a writ petition was filed against various hotels and restaurants by the federation of hotel and restaurant associations of India- The petitioner. The concern of the petitioner was that, hotels and restaurants were charging higher price than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Packaged drinking water and that this was against the law as according to the law, no commodity should be charged higher than the Maximum Retail Price. It was alleged that the hotels and restaurants charged higher than the MRP in the garb of providing service and ambience.
ISSUE:
Under section 57 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and under section 366 (29A) (F) of the Constitution of India.
PETITIONER CONTENTION:
The petitioner citing Section 366 (29A) (F) of the Indian constitution:
“ tax on the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made”
Said that, according to this law no extra charges should be charged in the name of transfer or supply of goods. So the restaurants and hotels should not be allowed to charge higher amounts.
RESPONDENT CONTENTION:
The respondent contended that all the jurisdictional allegations made by the plaintiff is not valid as in context of the section as according to the section 57 of legal metrology act, that particular section has already been revoked and also emphasized on the concept of the possibility to divide the “service element”, which is the dominant element, from the “sale element”, it is clear that such specific contracts cannot be the subject-matter of sales tax legislation and there is not a particular definition on how to differentiate it. So, there is no curse of action that should be taken against the restaurant or hotels.
JUDGEMENT:
The single bench of Justice R.F Nariman gave the judgment that, charging higher prices of packaged drinking water than that of the MRP printed on the packaging, during the service of customers in hotels and restaurants does not violate any of the provisions as the customer does not only come to the hotel or restaurant to buy the bottled water but also for other things which includes the service and ambience of the particular hotel or restaurant and the customer is aware of these things, thus no action can be taken against the respondents. Thus, the wit petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
its not good cz when they are buying the product from manufacturer the price of bottle 10rs on 20s bottle already 10 rs is profit the sell 200 per day means 200×10 = 2000rs how much they need profit