Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether transportation charges received under the agreement for carrying petroleum products amounted to tax on the transfer of the right to use the tankers under section 3F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
Analysis: Section 3F applies only where there is a transfer of the right to use goods. On the facts found by the Tribunal, the tankers always remained in the control and possession of the transporter, the expenses were borne by it, and the tanker was used only for transporting the specified goods. The governing principle is that a taxable transfer requires effective control and delivery of possession of the goods to the other party; mere receipt of transportation or hire charges is not enough. The conclusion accords with the settled position that custody alone is not possession and that the right to use is not transferred unless control passes to the other party.
Conclusion: The receipts were not exigible to tax under section 3F, and the revisions were liable to fail.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's view was affirmed and the revisions were dismissed, leaving the assessee successful.
Ratio Decidendi: Liability under the right-to-use provision arises only when effective control and possession of the goods are transferred to the other party; where the owner retains control and possession, no transfer of the right to use occurs.