Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether plant and machinery fixed to earth in an industrial unit leased as a running concern constituted movable property or goods so as to attract tax on transfer of the right to use; whether such machinery, in the absence of any agreement to sever it, could be treated as immovable property outside the definition of goods.
Analysis: The definition of goods under Section 2(d) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 excludes things attached to or fastened to the earth unless the contract contemplates severance. The nature of annexation, the degree and manner of attachment, and the intention behind fixing the machinery are material. Where the entire unit, including land, building, plant and machinery, is leased for running the factory and the machinery is permanently attached for operational and beneficial enjoyment of the premises, it assumes the character of immovable property. The machinery here was not shown to have been intended for severance or removal, and the factual setting was distinct from cases where the equipment remained movable despite attachment.
Conclusion: The plant and machinery did not constitute goods within Section 2(d) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and was not taxable as transfer of the right to use goods.