Right to use vehicles requires transfer of possession and control; mere transport contracts are not taxable deemed sales.

Transportation charges for carrying goods were not taxable under section 3-F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 because the arrangement did not amount to a transfer of the right to use specified vehicles. The expanded post-Forty-sixth Amendment concept of sale applies only where possession and effective control of identified goods pass to the transferee. Here, the vehicles were not placed under the distillery's exclusive use, remained with drivers employed by the truck owners, transit risk stayed with the transporter, and the distillery had no exclusive control over any particular vehicle. The contract was therefore for transportation services, not a deemed sale of the vehicles' use.

---

---

Issues: Whether transportation charges received for carrying goods under the agreements amounted to consideration for transfer of the right to use specified vehicles and were, therefore, liable to tax under section 3-F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The enlarged definition of "sale" introduced after the Forty-sixth Constitutional Amendment and section 3-F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 bring to tax transfers of the right to use goods, but such liability arises only where there is transfer of possession and effective control of specified goods to the transferee. On the terms of the agreements, the vehicles were not specified for exclusive use by the distillery, remained under the custody of drivers employed by the truck owners, transit risk remained with the transporter, and the distillery had no exclusive control over any particular vehicle. The arrangement was only for transportation services on contractual payment, not a transfer of the right to use the vehicles.

Conclusion: The transportation charges were not exigible to tax under section 3-F, because there was no transfer of the right to use any specified vehicle.

---