Court rules Passive Infrastructure Services to Sharing Operators not subject to VAT under DVAT Act.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the provision of Passive Infrastructure Services to Sharing Operators did not amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the DVAT Act. The court quashed the impugned order and subsequent assessment, stating that the arrangement did not involve a transfer of rights, thus not subject to VAT. The court found the impugned order unconstitutional and did not address the determination of the sale price. No costs were awarded in the case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the provision of Passive Infrastructure Services by the petitioner to Sharing Operators amounts to 'Transfer of right to use goods' under Section 2(1)(zc)(vi) of the DVAT Act, 2004.
2. Determination of the sale price for the purpose of discharging the liability under the DVAT Act.
3. Constitutionality of the impugned order under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer of Right to Use Goods:
The core issue was whether the provision of Passive Infrastructure Services by the petitioner to Sharing Operators constitutes a 'Transfer of right to use goods' as per Section 2(1)(zc)(vi) of the DVAT Act, 2004. The petitioner argued that the provision of Passive Infrastructure is essentially a service and does not involve the transfer of the right to use goods. The court examined the Master Service Agreement (MSA) between the petitioner and the sharing telecom operators, noting that the passive infrastructure remains under the control and possession of the petitioner. The sharing operators are granted limited access for specific purposes, and the agreement explicitly states that no right, title, or interest over the site or passive infrastructure is transferred to the sharing operators. The court concluded that the arrangement does not amount to a transfer of the right to use goods, aligning with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in a similar case.

2. Determination of Sale Price:
The Commissioner had to determine the sale price under Section 9(1)(zd) of the DVAT Act. The Commissioner concluded that the entire consideration received by the petitioner from the sharing telecom operators for access to the passive infrastructure amounts to consideration for the transfer of the right to use goods. However, the court, having found that there was no transfer of the right to use goods, did not delve further into the determination of the sale price.

3. Constitutionality of the Impugned Order:
The petitioner contended that the impugned order was ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, as well as Entry 97 of List I (Union List) of the 7th Schedule. The court, agreeing with the petitioner, found that the impugned order erroneously assumed a transfer of the right to use goods, leading to an incorrect levy of VAT. Consequently, the order was quashed.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 and the subsequent assessment order dated 16.01.2012. It was held that the provision of Passive Infrastructure Services by the petitioner does not constitute a transfer of the right to use goods, and thus, is not liable to VAT under the DVAT Act, 2004. The court did not find it necessary to discuss other authorities cited, as the decision was based on the specific facts and terms of the agreement in this case. There was no order as to costs.

---