Telecommunication service is not a deemed sale of radio frequencies; only a separately identifiable goods component may be taxed.

Electromagnetic waves or radio frequencies used in telecommunication are not goods for Article 366(29A)(d) because they are not deliverable, transferable, or marketable in the sense required for deemed sale. Providing a telephone connection does not ordinarily amount to a transfer of the right to use goods, as the subscriber receives service access rather than possession or control of identifiable goods. The transaction is predominantly one of service, though States may tax only a separately identifiable sale element, such as handsets or, on proper facts, SIM cards. The aspect theory cannot be used to add the value of services to goods, or goods to services, unless the statute and taxable component independently permit it.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether electromagnetic waves or radio frequencies in telecommunication constitute goods for the purpose of Article 366(29A)(d); (ii) whether providing a telephone connection amounts to a transfer of the right to use goods; (iii) whether the transaction of providing telephone connection is a composite contract of service and sale and, if so, whether the sale element is taxable by the States; (iv) whether the inter-State sale question survives once the goods element is negatived; and (v) whether the aspect theory permits States to include the value of services in the taxable value of goods or the Union to include the value of goods in the taxable value of services.

Issue (i): whether electromagnetic waves or radio frequencies in telecommunication constitute goods for the purpose of Article 366(29A)(d)

Analysis: The constitutional definition of deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) still requires identifiable goods that are deliverable, transferable and capable of being bought and sold. Electromagnetic waves are only the medium of communication and are neither delivered nor possessed by the subscriber. They are not marketable goods and do not satisfy the attributes of goods recognised for sales tax purposes.

Conclusion: Electromagnetic waves or radio frequencies are not goods for the purpose of Article 366(29A)(d).

Issue (ii): whether providing a telephone connection amounts to a transfer of the right to use goods

Analysis: A transfer of the right to use goods requires available goods, consensus on the identity of the goods, a legal right in the transferee to use them, exclusion of the transferor during the period of transfer, and the availability of deliverable goods. In the telecommunication arrangement, the subscriber receives access to a service and not possession or control of any identifiable goods. The licence and contract are structured for rendition of service, not transfer of a right to use goods.

Conclusion: Giving a telephone connection does not ordinarily amount to a transfer of the right to use goods.

Issue (iii): whether the transaction of providing telephone connection is a composite contract of service and sale and, if so, whether the sale element is taxable by the States

Analysis: Article 366(29A) permits bifurcation only where a discernible sale element exists within the constitutional deeming provision. Telecommunication service is predominantly service, and the sale element is confined, if at all, to separately identifiable goods such as handsets or, on proper facts, SIM cards. The States may levy sales tax only on a distinct sale element actually found on the facts and only to that extent.

Conclusion: The transaction may contain a sale element only in respect of separately identifiable goods, and the States may tax only that discernible sale component.

Issue (iv): whether the inter-State sale question survives once the goods element is negatived

Analysis: Once electromagnetic waves or radio frequencies are held not to be goods, the foundation for treating the principal telecommunication transaction as an inter-State sale disappears. The question remains relevant only if a separate sale of goods is established on the facts, such as in relation to SIM cards or handsets.

Conclusion: The inter-State sale question is left unanswered for the principal telecommunication service transaction.

Issue (v): whether the aspect theory permits States to include the value of services in the taxable value of goods or the Union to include the value of goods in the taxable value of services

Analysis: The aspect theory may explain overlapping legislative competence, but it does not permit one authority to tax what truly belongs to the other field. The value of services cannot be added to the sale price of goods, and the value of goods cannot be included in the service tax base unless the statute so permits and the taxable component is independently identifiable.

Conclusion: The aspect theory cannot be used to include the value of services in the taxable value of goods or vice versa.

Final Conclusion: The principal telecommunication transaction was held to be a service, not a sale of electromagnetic waves or radio frequencies, while only a separately discernible sale of goods, if any, could be subjected to sales tax and the SIM card issue was remitted for factual determination.

Ratio Decidendi: For sales tax to apply under Article 366(29A)(d), there must be identifiable goods capable of delivery and transfer of a legally enforceable right to use them; a telecommunication service by itself does not satisfy that requirement.

---