TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules hire charges for machinery not subject to sales tax under Andhra Pradesh GST Act.</h1> <h3>State of Andhra Pradesh and another Versus Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that hire charges for the transfer of the right to use machinery were not subject to sales tax under ... Whether there was a transfer of right to use the machinery by the respondent in favour of the contractors by collecting hire charges looking to the clauses contained in the agreement? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. On a careful reading and analysis of the various clauses contained in the agreement and, in particular, looking to clauses 1, 5, 7, 13 and 14, it becomes clear that the transaction did not involve transfer of right to use the machinery in favour of contractors. The High Court was right in arriving at such a conclusion. The Supreme Court of India considered the issue of whether there was a transfer of the right to use machinery by the respondent to contractors, thereby attracting sales tax liability under Section 5E of The Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The respondent, who owned the Visakhapatnam Steel project, supplied sophisticated machinery to contractors for use in executing contracted works and collected hire charges for the same. The appellant levied tax on the hire charges under Section 5E, leading to a writ petition by the respondent challenging the legality of the tax.The High Court analyzed the clauses of the agreement between the respondent and contractors to determine the nature of the transaction. It concluded that there was no transfer of the right to use machinery to the contractors, as required by Section 5E of the Act. The High Court specifically examined clauses 1, 5, 7, 13, and 14 of the agreement and found that the respondent retained effective control over the machinery even while it was in use by the contractors. The contractors were not free to use the machinery for purposes other than the project work, and the condition that the contractor was responsible for the custody of the machinery did not negate the respondent's possession and control. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner also held in a previous order that there was no transfer of the right to use machinery to the contractors based on the agreement's terms and conditions.The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no fault with it. The Court agreed that there was no transfer of the right to use machinery to the contractors, and therefore, the hire charges collected by the respondent were not subject to sales tax under Section 5E. The Court dismissed the appeal, directing each party to bear their respective costs.In conclusion, the Supreme Court determined that there was no transfer of the right to use machinery from the respondent to the contractors, as required by Section 5E of the Act, and upheld the High Court's decision that the hire charges were not subject to sales tax.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
