IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 S.T.Rev.No.525 of 2004 ----------------------------------------- T.A.NO.320/2001 OF THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 24.02.2003) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- ----------------------------------------------------------- M/S.HILL TOP, BAR ATTACHED HOTEL, KUNNATHANGADI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. -------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.No.525 of 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of July, 2008 ORDER H.L.Dattu,C.J. Though the revision petition is posted for admission, by consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis, the matter is taken up for hearing, since the legal issue framed by the Revenue is now covered by a decision of this Court. 2. The Revenue is before us, being aggrieved by a portion of the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.320 of 2001 dated 24th February, 2003. In the orders passed by the Tribunal, it was held that the sales turnover of soda and soft drinks at Bar attached hotels would fall under Entry 40 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“Act” for short) and it is taxable only at 6%. 3. The Revenue has framed the following question of law for our consideration and consequent decision. The same is as under: “1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in deciding that sales turnover of soda and soft drinks at bar attached hotel will fall under entry 40 of the First Schedule and taxable only @ 6%”. S.T.Rev.525 of 2004 - 2 - 4. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Lazarus Alosius v. State of Kerala [2005 (2) KLT 604] had occasion to consider the specific issue canvassed by the learned counsel for the Revenue before us. In the said decision, the Court had stated that the sales turnover of soda and soft drinks at Bar attached hotels will fall under Entry 87 of the First Schedule to the Act. 5. The observations made by the Full Bench in the aforesaid decision is as under: “Relevant is the word 'beverages'. In generic sense, any potable liquid except water is a beverage. Beverage may be alcoholic or non-alcoholic. Again, among non-alcoholic, it may be not beverage like tea, coffee or cold beverage like cola and soda. Beverages like cola and soda come within the meaning of 'aerated waters'. Aerate is process of exposing product to air for the purpose of mixing with air. Water mixed or charged with gas or air under pressure is 'aerated water'. Soda is aerated with carbon dioxide. Thus, it is clear that 'aerated water' is a special word to the general word 'beverage' and soda is a specific word to the word 'aerated water'. We need to examine whether the Legislature intended to employ the generic word 'beverage' in Entry 40/46 so as to include soda therein. The word 'beverages' in the above Entries cannot be stretched to cover all beverages. It is controlled by the preceding word 'cooked food'. Soda is not a beverage, which can be said to be egusdem generis with S.T.Rev.525 of 2004 - 3 - cooked food. Only drinks like tea and coffee can be brought within the meaning of 'beverages' as being related and inclusive of cooked food Entries 40/46. Soda cannot be brought within the Entries 40/46 of Schedule I of the K.G.S.T.Act”. 6. In view of the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Lazarus Alosius (supra), the revision petition requires to be allowed and the question of law framed by the Revenue requires to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, we do so. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-