Composite service contracts and transfer of right to use goods tests barred VAT on mud logging and vehicle hiring arrangements.

Contracts for mud logging services and vehicle hiring were treated as composite service arrangements rather than transfers of the right to use goods under Article 366(29A)(d). The State could tax only the deemed sale element, and not the service component, where the agreement was service-oriented and the right to use goods could not be separately and precisely identified. The court noted that the contracts involved crew deployment, maintenance, expertise, drivers, and operational control, making severance of sale and service elements impracticable. As the transactions were also subjected to service tax, the VAT levy was held unsustainable on the same transaction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contracts for mud logging services and hiring of vehicles amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods so as to attract VAT under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and whether the State could levy VAT where the transactions were also subjected to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The governing constitutional framework under Article 366(29A) permits the State to tax only the deemed sale element in a transaction falling within clause (d), namely transfer of the right to use goods. The applicable principles from the Supreme Court authorities make it clear that the taxable event is the transfer of the right itself, and that where a contract is composite, the service element cannot be taxed by the State. The Court examined the contracts and found that the mud logging arrangement included extensive services such as crew deployment, maintenance, expertise, and operational responsibility, while the vehicle hire contracts were structured as service arrangements with drivers and operational conditions. The contracts could not be meaningfully severed into distinct sale and service components with exactitude. The Court also treated the payment and levy of service tax as significant, holding that the same transaction could not be burdened with both service tax and VAT, particularly where the dominant substance of the agreement was service-oriented and the value attributable to any right to use goods could not be separately and precisely ascertained.

Conclusion: The transactions were not liable to VAT as a transfer of the right to use goods in the manner asserted by the State, and the levy and deduction of VAT were held unsustainable.

---