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 the buses supplied under the contract amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods so as to attract tax under Section 3-F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
Analysis: The contract showed that during the contracted period the buses remained in the possession and effective control of UPSRTC, which appointed the conductors, regulated operation of the buses, issued tickets, and enjoyed the right to receive the hire amount. The agreement also restricted transfer of ownership without prior permission and treated breach as cancellation. Applying the test for transfer of right to use goods, the Court found that the buses were identifiable, available and deliverable, and that possession and effective control had been transferred for the contract period. The earlier decision relied on by the assessee was distinguished because, on its own terms, it did not contain a clause conferring possession and effective control on UPSRTC.
Conclusion: The transaction constituted a transfer of the right to use the buses and was taxable under Section 3-F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
Final Conclusion: The revisions were allowed, the appellate orders were set aside, and the assessment order was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: A contract amounts to a transfer of the right to use goods when the goods are identifiable and deliverable and the transferee obtains possession and effective control for the relevant period, even if ownership remains with the transferor.