Employee bus transport not a transfer under U.P. Trade Tax Act. Possession & control key.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that providing buses for employee transportation did not constitute a transfer of the right to use goods under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The court emphasized that the dealer retained possession and control of the buses, which were operated solely for designated purposes without transferring custody to the companies. The judgment clarified that for a transfer of the right to use to occur, goods must be in a deliverable stage. Therefore, the revision was dismissed, affirming that there was no tax liability in this case.

---

---

Issues:

1. Interpretation of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 regarding the tax liability on the provision of buses for employee transportation.
2. Determination of whether the transaction constitutes a transfer of the right to use goods.

Analysis:

1. The revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was brought against the Tribunal's order relating to the assessment year 1996-97. The assessing authority had levied tax on the amount received for providing buses to companies for employee transportation, treating it as a transfer of the right to use goods. However, the first appellate authority overturned this decision, stating that the buses were provided solely for employee transportation at specified rates and limited hours. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that there was no transfer of the right to use the buses to the companies, as the dealer retained possession and control of the vehicles throughout. The High Court upheld this view, citing the necessity for the goods to be in a deliverable stage for a transfer of the right to use to occur.

2. The key point of contention was whether the provision of buses for employee transportation constituted a transfer of the right to use goods, thereby attracting tax liability under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The Tribunal's decision, supported by the High Court, hinged on the absence of evidence indicating a transfer of possession or control of the buses to the companies. The courts emphasized that the buses were operated by the dealer's personnel, solely for the designated purpose of transporting employees, without any indication of a transfer of custody to the companies. Citing the precedent set by the Constitution Bench of the apex court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, the High Court reiterated the requirement for goods to be in a deliverable stage for a transfer of the right to use to be established. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision, affirming the Tribunal's decision that there was no transfer of the right to use the buses in this case.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the tax implications of providing goods for specific purposes without transferring the right to use them, emphasizing the necessity of a deliverable stage for such a transfer to occur under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

---