Right to use goods in composite service contracts: set top boxes were held taxable as a discernible sale element.

Supply and installation of set top boxes in a direct-to-home arrangement amounted to transfer of the right to use goods, because customers obtained effective control over identifiable boxes installed in their premises. That goods component was a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) and was taxable under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The contract was also divisible to that extent: where the sale element in a composite arrangement is separately discernible, State tax may be levied only on the goods component, while the signal transmission service remains outside State taxation. The petitioners therefore failed on the taxability of the set top box element.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the supply and installation of set top boxes in direct-to-home service amounted to transfer of the right to use goods so as to attract value added tax under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004; (ii) whether the contract was a composite service contract not liable to split into service and sale elements for State taxation.

Issue (i): Whether the supply and installation of set top boxes in direct-to-home service amounted to transfer of the right to use goods so as to attract value added tax under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004.

Analysis: Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India treats transfer of the right to use goods as a deemed sale. The relevant enquiry is whether the customer obtains effective control and the right to use identifiable goods, not whether the transaction is described as a service arrangement. The set top boxes were available, deliverable, installed in the customers' premises, and placed under their effective control for viewing channels as desired. The value of the set top boxes was also separable from the service component and was reflected in the petitioners' own accounts and charges.

Conclusion: The supply of set top boxes amounted to transfer of the right to use goods and was taxable under section 4(2) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004.

Issue (ii): Whether the contract was a composite service contract not liable to split into service and sale elements for State taxation.

Analysis: A contract falling within the constitutional category of deemed sale may be split to the extent of the sale element where the sale component is discernible. The authorities on composite contracts and the exclusion of the dominant nature test in such cases support taxation of the sale element where the goods component can be identified with exactitude. The service part relating to transmission of signals remained outside State tax, but the set top box component constituted a distinct taxable sale element.

Conclusion: The contract was divisible to the extent of the set top box component, and the State could levy value added tax only on that discernible sale element.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed because the transfer of the right to use the set top boxes was held taxable, while the service component was not brought to State tax.

Ratio Decidendi: Where customers obtain effective control and the right to use identifiable goods under a composite service arrangement, the goods component is a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) and may be taxed by the State to the extent that the sale element is separately discernible.

---