Transfer of right to use goods test: well-logging service contract treated as services, not a taxable deemed sale.

A contract for well-logging, perforating and wireline services was examined to determine whether it transferred the right to use goods under Article 366(29A)(d) and the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976. Because the equipment remained the contractor's exclusive property and possession, the contractor retained operational custody and control, and the corporation received only service performance without the legal right to use the equipment to the exclusion of the contractor, the arrangement was held to be a service contract and not a deemed sale. As the Act did not impose sales tax on such a transaction, the tax-deduction demand treating it as taxable transfer was without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contract for well-logging, perforating and wireline services amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods so as to attract sales tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, and whether the tax-deduction demands raised on that basis were sustainable.

Analysis: Liability under the TST Act arose only if the transaction satisfied the statutory requirements of a dealer, a taxable sale and taxable turnover. The constitutional scheme under Article 366(29A)(d) permitted tax only on transfer of the right to use goods, not on mere use of goods, and the taxable event occurred only when the right itself stood transferred. The terms of the agreement showed that the equipment remained the exclusive property and possession of the contractor, the contractor retained operational custody and control, and the contract was structured as a service contract with equipment used by the contractor for performing the services. The contract did not confer on the corporation the legal right to use the equipment to the exclusion of the contractor, which is an essential attribute of a transfer of the right to use goods. On a clause-by-clause reading, the transaction was therefore not a deemed sale but a contract for rendering services. Since the Act did not create a charge on such a transaction, the demand for deduction at source treating the contract as a taxable transfer was without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The contract was not a transfer of the right to use goods and was not exigible to sales tax under the TST Act, 1976.

---