Right to use goods test limits VAT where drilling contracts are predominantly services and service tax already applies.

A contract is taxable as a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) only where there is an actual transfer of the right to use goods; mere supply of specialised equipment with personnel, while the owner retains possession and effective control, does not satisfy that test. On the stated facts, directional drilling and mobile drilling rig contracts were treated as predominantly service contracts, with no separable sale element of sufficient certainty, so they were not liable to VAT as sales under the Tripura Value Added Tax regime. The text also states that sales tax and service tax operate in mutually exclusive fields, and that the State could not levy VAT on the same transactions where service tax had already been paid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contracts for directional drilling services and mobile drilling rig services amounted to transfer of the right to use goods so as to be taxable under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and the Tripura Value Added Tax Rules, 2005; (ii) whether the same transactions could be subjected to value added tax by the State when service tax had been paid to the Central Government.

Issue (i): Whether the contracts for directional drilling services and mobile drilling rig services amounted to transfer of the right to use goods so as to be taxable under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and the Tripura Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.

Analysis: Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution permits tax only on transfer of the right to use goods, not on mere use of goods or on service elements embedded in a contract. The contract terms showed that specialised equipment was supplied with highly trained personnel, while the owner retained possession and effective control over the machinery and could not be said to have transferred an independent right to use the goods in the sense required for a deemed sale. The contracts were primarily for specialised services, and the service element was substantial and not practically separable with exactitude from any minor goods element.

Conclusion: The transactions did not amount to transfer of the right to use goods and were not taxable as sales under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004.

Issue (ii): Whether the same transactions could be subjected to value added tax by the State when service tax had been paid to the Central Government.

Analysis: Sales tax and service tax operate in mutually exclusive fields. Where a contract is essentially one for service and the value of the alleged sale component cannot be separated with certainty, the State cannot tax the whole transaction as a sale so as to trench upon the Union's power to levy service tax. The Court treated the contract as indivisible for taxation purposes and accepted that the service tax regime had already been invoked on the same transactions.

Conclusion: The State could not levy value added tax on the same transactions in addition to service tax.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned levy of value added tax on the contracts was held unsustainable, and the tax already deducted was directed to be refunded with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract is taxable as a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) only when there is an actual transfer of the right to use goods; where the contract is predominantly one of service and the sale element cannot be separated with certainty, the State cannot impose value added tax on the whole transaction, especially when service tax is otherwise applicable.

---