TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 transportation charges for liquor not taxable under U.P. Trade Tax Act</h1> The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the transportation charges for transporting liquor were not taxable under section 3-F of the U.P. ... - Issues Involved: The issue involves determining whether transportation charges received by a transporter from a distillery for transporting liquor to various warehouses are liable to tax under section 3-F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.Judgment Details:Issue 1: Constitutional Amendment and Definition of Sale- The constitutional amendment introduced clause (29A) in Article 366, expanding the definition of 'sale or purchase of goods.'- Section 3-F was inserted in the U.P. Trade Tax Act, making turnover related to the transfer of the right to use goods taxable.- The petitioner transported liquor for the distillery and received transportation charges, leading to tax assessment under section 3-F.- The petitioner argued that no transfer of the right to use vehicles occurred, as it arranged vehicles from the market for the distillery's use.Issue 2: Transfer of Right to Use Goods- The department claimed that the vehicles remained under the control of the distillery during transportation, constituting a transfer of the right to use goods.- The petitioner contended that without specific vehicle transfer, the right to use goods was not transferred.- The agreements specified that vehicles were to be used only for the distillery's goods, with the transporter retaining custody and responsibility for the vehicles.Issue 3: Interpretation of Transfer of Right to Use- The department argued that the constitutional amendment aimed to include transporters under taxable transactions.- The court referenced a similar case where the control, custody, and possession of goods determined the transfer of the right to use.- Emphasizing the need for exclusive control by the transferee, the court found no evidence of such transfer in the present case.Conclusion:- The court concluded that the contract between the parties was for service, not a transfer of the right to use vehicles.- As no specific vehicle transfer occurred, the transportation charges were not taxable under section 3-F.- The assessment proceedings against the petitioner for consecutive years were quashed, ruling in favor of the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
