Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.30 seconds)Section 2 in Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
Section 3 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 130 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Duke And Sons Private Limited on 22 September, 1998
The Division Bench after referring to various clauses in the agreement between the parties therein took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., Vs.Commercial Tax Officer, reported in 77 Sales Tax Cases 182; Vikas Sales Corporation and another Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another, reported in 102 STC 106, Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Duke & Sons; Aggarwal Brothers Vs.State of Haryana, reported in 113 STC 317; 20th Century Finance Corporation Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and held that the transfer was right to use and not a mere right to enjoy. It was pointed out that for transferring the right to use the trade mark, it is not necessary to hand over the trade mark to the transferee or give control or possession of the trade mark to him and it could be done merely by authorizing the transferree to use the same in the manner required by law and the right to use the trade mark could be transferred simultaneously to any number of persons. It was held that the assessee in the said case retained the liberty to use the mark in the event of the licensor started to manufacture the products equally it retained the liberty to grant licence to any other individual person or company to use the trade mark and such right being an intangible or incorporeal goods which can be merchandised by the registered owner and as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the word 'goods' is defined in a very wide terms so as to bring in both the tangible and intangible objects and trade mark right is intangible goods which could be subject matter of transfer. The above decision would squarely apply to the case on hand. Since the petitioner has retained the liberty to use the trade mark at the same time, the transfer right to use the incorporeal right exclusively in favour of the transferree in respect of specified outlet for a definite period of time. Therefore, it is not a mere licence or transfer of mere right to enjoy but transfer of right to use intangible goods.
Twentieth Century Finance Corpn.Ltd.& ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2000
The Division Bench after referring to various clauses in the agreement between the parties therein took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., Vs.Commercial Tax Officer, reported in 77 Sales Tax Cases 182; Vikas Sales Corporation and another Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another, reported in 102 STC 106, Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Duke & Sons; Aggarwal Brothers Vs.State of Haryana, reported in 113 STC 317; 20th Century Finance Corporation Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and held that the transfer was right to use and not a mere right to enjoy. It was pointed out that for transferring the right to use the trade mark, it is not necessary to hand over the trade mark to the transferee or give control or possession of the trade mark to him and it could be done merely by authorizing the transferree to use the same in the manner required by law and the right to use the trade mark could be transferred simultaneously to any number of persons. It was held that the assessee in the said case retained the liberty to use the mark in the event of the licensor started to manufacture the products equally it retained the liberty to grant licence to any other individual person or company to use the trade mark and such right being an intangible or incorporeal goods which can be merchandised by the registered owner and as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the word 'goods' is defined in a very wide terms so as to bring in both the tangible and intangible objects and trade mark right is intangible goods which could be subject matter of transfer. The above decision would squarely apply to the case on hand. Since the petitioner has retained the liberty to use the trade mark at the same time, the transfer right to use the incorporeal right exclusively in favour of the transferree in respect of specified outlet for a definite period of time. Therefore, it is not a mere licence or transfer of mere right to enjoy but transfer of right to use intangible goods.
M/S.Yasha Overseas vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors on 6 May, 2008
Similarly, the subject matter in the case of Yasha Oversees (Supra) deals with REP Licences which have intrinsic value and cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
Sunrise Associates vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 28 April, 2006
29.We have perused the conditions of the agreement, dated 27.09.2002 entered into by the petitioner from which we find that the petitioner has transferred their right to use their trade mark, good will, reputation exclusively to the franchisee in respect of a particular outlet and any misuse of such exclusively licensed right rendered, the franchisee open to action which meant to include the termination of agreement in terms of XIV of the said agreement. Therefore, it is a case where goods which are in the nature of intangible or incorporeal goods were available for delivery there were consensus adidem to the identity of such goods as the transferee has a legal right to use the goods and during the period when the agreement was in force, namely for a period of 10 years it was an exclusive right given to the transferee by the petitioner in respect of a particular store and consequently a transfer of right to use and not merely a licence to use the goods and during the period when the agreement was in force, the petitioner as the transferor could not transfer such goods with particular reference to the exclusive right given in respect of a particular store to any other party. Thus, all the attributes to constitute transfer of right to use the goods have been fulfilled and therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BSNL's stands fully satisfied and the right given by the petitioner is undoubtedly a transfer of right to use incorporeal or intangible goods and therefore, exigible to sales-tax.