Just a moment...
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 hiring of cranes under the contract amounted to transfer of the right to use goods so as to make the respondent a dealer and the transaction a sale under the Maharashtra Sales on Transfer of Right to Use Any Goods for Any Purpose Act, 1985.
Analysis: The statutory scheme treats a person as a dealer only if he transfers the right to use any goods, and a transaction as a sale only if such right is transferred for consideration. The contract showed that the respondent retained the crane, provided the driver, cleaner, diesel, oil and accessories, and kept the ultimate control over the equipment. The transferee was not shown to have obtained the legal consequences of ownership of use, including exclusive control, permissions or licences. Applying the settled test that a mere licence or hire arrangement is not enough and that effective control must pass to the transferee, the transaction did not satisfy the essential attributes of transfer of the right to use goods.
Conclusion: The respondent was not a dealer within section 2(4) and the crane-hire transaction was not a sale under section 2(10); the reference was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.