Transfer of right to use machinery: hire charges for dumpers and cranes were taxable, not job-work service fees.

Receipts described as hire charges for dumpers, loaders and cranes were held to represent consideration for transfer of the right to use goods, not mere service charges for job work. The decisive factors were the absence of any document showing specific work assignments, contractual restrictions, or proof that the machinery remained under the supplier's exclusive control, and the applicant's own accounts describing the receipts as hire charges. Supply of operators did not change the character of the transaction. The receipts were therefore taxable under section 2(g)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and the assessment and revisional orders were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the receipts described as hire charges for dumpers, loaders and cranes amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods taxable under section 2(g)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, or were merely service charges for job work.

Analysis: The decisive factor was the nature of the arrangement reflected in the available material. The claimed job-work character was not supported by any identified document showing specific work assignments, contractual terms, or evidence that the machinery remained under the applicant's exclusive control while being used for a defined job. The applicant's own accounts described the receipts as hire charges, and the absence of proof of a service contract or of any restriction on the beneficiary's use of the machinery supported the inference that the machines were placed at the user's disposal for its own requirements. The supply of operators did not by itself alter that conclusion. On these facts, the earlier decisions relied upon by the applicant were held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The receipts were correctly treated as consideration for transfer of the right to use the machinery and were taxable under section 2(g)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The assessment and revisional orders were upheld and no interference was called for.

---