Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Lakshmi Audio Visual Inc. And Anr. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 23 July, 2001 cites

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer, Company ... on 15 December, 1989

9. Thus if the transaction is one of leasing/hiring/letting simpliciter under which the possession of the goods, i.e., effective and general control of the goods is to be given to the customer and the customer has the freedom and choice of selecting the manner, time and nature of use and enjoyment, though within the frame work of the agreement, then it would be a transfer of the right to use the goods and fall under the extended definition of "sale". On the other hand, if the customer entrusts to the assessee the work of achieving a certain desired result and that involves the use of goods belonging to the assessee and rendering of several other services and the goods used by the assessee to achieve the desired result continue to be in the effective and general control of the assessee, then, the transaction will not be a transfer of the right to use goods falling within the extended definition of "sale". Let me now clarify the position further, with an illustration which is a variation of the illustration used by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 41 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Harbans Lal And Another vs State Of Haryana on 15 October, 1992

7. The provisions of the said section discloses that the sine quo non for exigibility to tax under Section 5-C, is the transfer of the right to use any goods. The transfer of the right to use the goods, which may be by way of leasing, letting or hiring, involves the transferor permitting the transferee (lessee/hirer) to use his goods. To constitute such transfer, there should be delivery of possession of the goods by the transferor to the transferee, that is transfer of the effective and general control of the goods with the right to use the goods, as distinct from a mere custody of the goods, from the transferor to the transferee. But, such transfer need not be a "legal transfer of the goods" nor have all trappings of a "lease". The question whether there is such transfer or not is essentially a question of fact which has to be determined with reference to the terms of the contract governing the transfer of the right to use goods. The nomenclature of the agreement may not be relevant. Even if the agreement used the title "Licence agreement" but the terms provided for transfer of effective control to the customer, then the transaction will be a transfer of the right to use the goods and thus a deemed sale falling under Section 5-C. This position is also evident from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Aggarwal Brothers v. State of Haryana and the decision of the division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Haryana .
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 32 - G N Ray - Full Document

Twentieth Century Finance Corpn.Ltd.& ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2000

In 20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court while clarifying that the taxable event regarding transfer of the right to use goods occurs when a contract for such transfer is executed between the transferor and transferee and the sites of such deemed sale would be the place where the contract is executed and not the place of actual delivery of goods, held that though delivery of goods is not the condition precedent for a contract of transfer of right to use the goods, the delivery of goods is one of the elements of the transfer of the right to use.
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 162 - V N Khare - Full Document

Modern Decorators vs Commercial Tax Officer And Ors. on 2 February, 1990

8.5 In Modern Decorators v. Commercial Tax Officer [1990] 77 STC 470 (WBTT), the business carried on by a decorator was considered. The business consisted of the following : (i) constructing/erecting pandals, barricades, rostrums, etc., as per the requirements of the customers with the aid of bamboos, sal balla, ropes, tarpaulins, decorating cloth and other materials ; and after the expiry of the period specified by the customers such pandals, barricades, rostrums, etc., were dismantled by the decorator, with its own men and labour and taken back to its godown and (ii) Hiring chairs, tables and furniture. The West Bengal Taxation Tribunal held as follows :
State Taxation Tribunal - West Bengal Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Krushna Chandra Behera vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 12 May, 2000

8.3 In Krushna Chandra Behera v. State of Orissa [1991] 83 STC 325 (Orissa), the assessee had given its bus on hire to Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. The assessee provided the driver and was also responsible for carrying out the repairs to the bus. The assessee was also bound by orders and directions of the Corporation in regard to journey, operation timings, routes, haltage, etc. The driver provided by the assessee had to follow the directions, orders and instructions of the authorised officials of the Corporation. The Orissa High Court held that as the effective and general control of the bus had passed on to the customer (Orissa State Road Transport Corporation) and the customer was in possession, as distinguished from mere custody, the transaction was a transfer of the right to use the goods and therefore a deemed sale.
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - B N Agrawal - Full Document
1