St on restra

Save Share

This query is : Resolved

Shailendra Jaiswal, (Querist)

27 November 2014 ST are charge on value of service
then why ST on Restrarent charge on 40% value of (food+ser charged)
why ST on Restra not charge on service charges what logic behind this

Shailendra Jaiswal,

Shailendra Jaiswal, (Querist)

03 December 2014 why not responded

Aashok Kumar Sharma

Aashok Kumar Sharma

(Expert)

25 July 2025 Excellent question — and you're absolutely right to point out the apparent inconsistency between **Service Tax being a "value of service" tax** and the **40% abatement rule** applied to restaurants.

Let me explain the logic behind this with some clarity:

---

## 🧾 Your Question Summarized:

> **Why is Service Tax on restaurants charged on 40% of the total bill (including food), and not just on the "service" part like service charges?**

---

## ✅ Short Answer:

Because in the case of **restaurant services**, the government considered it a **“bundled” supply** — not pure service, not pure goods — and taxed it on a **notional value of service (40%)**, using an abatement method.

---

## 🔍 Detailed Explanation:

### 1. **Composite (Bundled) Service**

In an **air-conditioned restaurant**, the customer gets a **bundle** of services:

* Food (goods)
* Service (ambience, waiters, AC, seating, etc.)

> So, it's not just a sale of food or a standalone service — it’s a **composite contract**.

### 2. **Why Not Just Tax "Service Charge"?**

The **"service charge"** you see (say 5% or 10%) on the bill is **not the full value of services provided** — it’s a charge levied by the restaurant (often shared with staff), not the government.

But Service Tax is based on the **value of services embedded in the entire experience** — including the preparation, serving, ambiance, etc.

So, **limiting ST only to service charge would under-tax the actual service portion**.

---

### 3. **Rule 2C of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006**

* For **air-conditioned restaurants**, **40% of the total bill** was deemed to be the value of service.
* That’s why **Service Tax was charged on 40%**, with an **abatement of 60%** (considered goods part).

#### Example:

| Item | Amount (₹) |
| ----------------------- | ---------- |
| Food | 1000 |
| Service Charge (say 5%) | 50 |
| Total Bill | 1050 |
| **40% Value for ST** | 420 |
| **ST @12.36% on ₹420** | ₹51.91 |

---

### 4. **Government’s Logic (Policy Reasoning)**

* To **simplify compliance**: Rather than splitting bills into "goods" and "services"
* To **ensure fair taxation** of services provided under the restaurant experience
* **Service Tax was not on entire food value**, but on 40% only (as a deemed service portion)

---

## ✅ Summary:

| Point | Clarification |
| ---------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Why not tax only “service charge”? | Because it doesn't reflect full service value |
| Why 40% of total bill? | Govt. deemed 40% as representing service part in composite restaurant service |
| Legal Basis | Rule 2C of Service Tax Valuation Rules |
| What is service charge then? | A restaurant’s own fee (separate from Service Tax) |

---

Let me know if you want a comparison with the **post-GST regime**, where this logic changed significantly (with GST split between food & service components).

You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now