Judgment :- RAMASWAMI, J. M/s. Spencer and Company Limited, the respondents herein, are running two catering establishments, namely, Connemara Hotel at Madras and Savoy Hotel at Ootacamund, in addition to the business as general merchants, tea estate owners, manufacturers of aerated water, drugs, etc. For the assessment years 1958-59, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 the assessee-respondents submitted the returns under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In respect of the turnover relating to the two hotels they had adopted 50 per cent of the total receipts under apartment and board as representing sales of articles of food and drinks and returned the following amounts as taxable turnovers in respect of each of the years treating the same as sale value of food and drinks : 1958-59 ... Rs. 4, 44, 541.87 at 2 1/2 per cent 1959-60 ... Rs. 3, 20, 382.61 at 2 1/2 per cent 1960-61 ... Rs. 5, 65, 770.30 at 2 per cent 1961-62 ... Rs. 6, 08, 412.48 at 2 per cent 1962-63 ... Rs. 2, 52, 548.00 at 2 per cent 1963-64 ... Rs. 1, 08, 957.82 at 2 per cent In calculating the 50 per cent of the receipts under apartment and board as representing sales of articles of food and drinks, the assessees had deducted a sum of Rs. 1, 43, 840 for the year 1958-59, Rs. 1, 67, 624 for the year 1960-61, Rs. 2, 22, 061 for 1961-62, Rs. 76, 934 for 1962-63 and Rs. 15, 390.50 for 1963-64 from the total receipts of apartment and board as relating to charges for air-conditioning and telephone facilities provided in the rooms. From the assessment year 1949-50 onwards 50 per cent of the apartment and boarding charges was taken as the taxable turnover representing sale of food and drinks and the assessees were assessed accordingly up to 1957-58. The assessees while adopting 50 per cent of the receipts from apartment and boarding charges as the taxable turnover, sought to deduct the above-said amounts as representing the charges for air-conditioning and telephones installed sometime in 1956-57. The assessees claimed relief in respect of this item on the ground that while a single room was charged at Rs. 30, an air-conditioned single room was charged at Rs. 37.50. Similarly, an air-conditioned double room was charged at Rs. The assessees claimed relief in respect of this item on the ground that while a single room was charged at Rs. 30, an air-conditioned single room was charged at Rs. 37.50. Similarly, an air-conditioned double room was charged at Rs. 70, while a non-air-conditioned room was charged only Rs. 52.50 and the difference in these rates represented the charges for air-conditioning and telephones and that, therefore, they had to be deducted in arriving at the 50 per cent of the value of the taxable turnover as representing the value of articles of food and drinks. This contention was not accepted by the assessing authority and the 50 per cent of the total receipt from apartment and board was determined as the taxable turnover.The assessees preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for all these years, in respect of the disallowance of their claim relating to air-conditioning and telephone charges alone. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that though the assessees were charging enhanced rate for rooms with air-conditioning and telephone facilities, they had not shown any break-up figures in the bills for these facilities but had made a consolidated charge. For these and other reasons, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the disallowance of their claim for air-conditioning and telephone facilities was in order. The assessees preferred further appeals to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessees not only claimed exemption for air-conditioning and telephone charges but submitted that the entire turnover relating to apartment and board is not liable to tax and that, therefore, the 50 per cent of the consolidated apartment and board charges which was returned as representing the sale value of food and drinks was also not liable to be taxed. In support of this contention, the assessees relied on the decision of the Punjab High Court in State of Punjab v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. Following that decision, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the assessees and directed the deletion of the entire turnover relating to receipts from apartment and board. The State has preferred these revisions against that order of the Tribunal. The State has preferred these revisions against that order of the Tribunal. The decision of the Punjab High Court relied on by the Tribunal has now been confirmed by the Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. In that case, the assessee-company which carried on business as hoteliers, as part of its business, received guests in its several hotels and charged an all inclusive rate for each day. The bill given to the guests did not contain different items in respect of each of the amenities. The question for consideration was whether the company was liable to pay sales tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, in respect of the meals served in the hotel to the guests coming there for stay. confirming the decision of the Punjab High Court in State of Punjab v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. the Supreme Court held that the transaction was essentially one and indivisible and that it was one of service by the hotelier in the performance of which and as part of the amenities incidental to the service, the hotelier served meals at stated hours. It was not open to the revenue to split up the transaction into two parts - one of service and the other of sale of food-stuffs - and to split up also the bill charged by the hoteliers as consisting of charges for lodging and charges for food-stuffs served to him. There was no sale of food-stuffs and, therefore, the assessee-company was not liable to pay sales tax in respect of meals served to guests in its hotel. This decision is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case on merits.The learned Assistant Government Pleader therefore could not challenge the decision of the Tribunal in this regard. But he submitted that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in giving relief to this turnover which was not disputed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. As already stated, the assessees themselves opted to be assessed at 50 per cent of the consolidated receipts for apartment and board and submitted a return on that basis to the assessing authority. Before the assessing authority the assessees disputed only that portion of the turnover which, according to them, related to the telephone and air-conditioning charges. This claim was rejected by the assessing authority. Before the assessing authority the assessees disputed only that portion of the turnover which, according to them, related to the telephone and air-conditioning charges. This claim was rejected by the assessing authority. The appeal filed by the assessees to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also related only to this claim of exemption for air-conditioning and telephone charges and the other turnover of 50 per cent of the board and apartment charges was not the subject-matter of appeal before that authority. The learned Government Pleader therefore submitted that the Tribunal should not have entertained or allowed the turnover which was not in dispute before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We are of the view that the learned counsel for the State is well-founded in his contention. We had occasion to consider this question in T.C. Nos. 161 and 173 of 1968 (Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. v. State of Madras). In that case, the assessee were assessed on the taxable turnovers of Rs. 32, 42, 239-4-11 and Rs. 43, 60, 928.91 for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 respectively. There was an appeal in respect of a portion of these turnovers on the ground that it represented either works contract or labour contract. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave relief to a certain extent. The assessees took the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the assessees filed petitions seeking to raise additional grounds and by these grounds they challenged the liability to tax of certain items of turnover which were not in dispute either before the assessing authority or before the appellate authority. The Tribunal held that since the liability of the turnover raised in the additional grounds not having been agitated either before the assessing authority or before the appellate authority, it was not possible for the Tribunal to go into the taxability or otherwise of the said turnover. Confirming this decision, this court held : "Section 36 (Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959) opens with the words 'any person objecting to an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner'. If a particular turnover was not brought before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by way of an appeal by the assessee, he cannot be said to have been aggrieved by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner not considering that item in his order. If a particular turnover was not brought before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by way of an appeal by the assessee, he cannot be said to have been aggrieved by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner not considering that item in his order. Therefore, the test for finding out the powers of the Tribunal is to correlate the subject-matter of the appeal before the Tribunal to that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner." * Support for this view was also invoked from the decisions in Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer.