Transfer of right to use brand: captive manufacturing fees escape sales tax, but royalty for brand exploitation is taxable.

A taxable transfer of the right to use intangible goods arises only when the transferee obtains effective commercial control and unrestricted use of the brand or other intangible property. On the beer franchise arrangement, the contract bottling units were captive manufacturers acting under the assessee's specifications and control, with no independent right to exploit the brand; that receipt was therefore not liable to sales tax. On the packaged drinking water arrangement, the licensee dealers were allowed to use and commercially exploit the Kingfisher mark on royalty, so effective control passed and the royalty was taxable under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amount received by the assessee as brand franchise fees from the contract bottling units for manufacture of beer amounted to transfer of the right to use goods and was exigible to tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957; (ii) Whether the royalty received by the assessee from licensee dealers for use of the Kingfisher brand in packaged drinking water amounted to transfer of the right to use goods and was exigible to tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Issue (i): Whether the amount received by the assessee as brand franchise fees from the contract bottling units for manufacture of beer amounted to transfer of the right to use goods and was exigible to tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The arrangement for beer showed that the contract bottling units acted only as captive manufacturers on behalf of the assessee, under its specifications, control, and brand ownership. They had no independent right to commercially exploit the brand name, no effective control over it, and no unrestricted transfer of the right to use the intangible property. The receipt was also treated as a service and subjected to service tax. On these facts, the transaction did not amount to a taxable transfer of the right to use goods.

Conclusion: The brand franchise fees received from the contract bottling units were not liable to sales tax.

Issue (ii): Whether the royalty received by the assessee from licensee dealers for use of the Kingfisher brand in packaged drinking water amounted to transfer of the right to use goods and was exigible to tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: In the packaged drinking water arrangement, the licensee dealers were granted the right to use and commercially exploit the Kingfisher trade mark on payment of royalty. The effective control over the brand use passed to them, bringing the transaction within the concept of transfer of the right to use intangible goods. Such royalty was therefore taxable under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

Conclusion: The royalty received from the licensee dealers was liable to sales tax.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded only in part: the assessee obtained relief from tax on beer-related brand franchise fees, but remained liable for tax on royalty from the packaged drinking water arrangements, with the matter remitted for consequential assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxable transfer of the right to use intangible goods arises only when the transferee obtains effective and unrestricted commercial control over the goods or brand; a captive manufacturing arrangement under the owner's control does not amount to such transfer.

---