TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rulings on VAT liability for Monsanto and Subway transactions.</h1> <h3>Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd), Subway Systems India Pvt Ltd Versus Union of India & Others</h3> Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd), Subway Systems India Pvt Ltd Versus Union of India & ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the transactions in question are liable to service tax or sales tax.2. Interpretation of Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution regarding the transfer of the right to use goods.3. Applicability of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act) to the transactions.4. Distinction between a transfer of the right to use goods and a mere permissive use.5. Situs of the transaction for tax purposes.Detailed Analysis:I. Introduction:The judgment addresses two writ petitions involving the issue of whether the transactions are liable to service tax or sales tax. The facts of the Monsanto Petition and the Subway Petition are distinct, but the reasoning in one case impacts the other.II. Constitutional & Legislative Framework:Article 366(29A) of the Constitution includes various forms of deemed sales, including the transfer of the right to use any goods. The MVAT Act defines 'sale' to include the transfer of the right to use any goods for valuable consideration. The Finance Act, 1994 defines 'intellectual property service' and includes the temporary transfer or permitting the use of intellectual property rights as a taxable service.III. Facts in the Monsanto Petition:Monsanto India sub-licenses hybrid cotton seed technology to seed companies, which use the technology to produce and sell genetically modified seeds. Monsanto India claims this transaction is a service subject to service tax, not a sale under the MVAT Act. The company challenges the applicability of VAT on these transactions, arguing that the transaction involves permissive use rather than a transfer of the right to use goods.IV. Submissions & Findings in Monsanto:Monsanto India argues that its transactions are services, not sales, as they involve permissive use of technology. The transactions do not meet the criteria for a transfer of the right to use goods, as Monsanto retains control over the technology. The court, however, finds that the sub-license agreements involve a transfer of the right to use the technology embedded in the seeds, satisfying the criteria for a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d). The court rejects Monsanto's argument that the seeds are merely a medium and irrelevant to the transaction. The court also dismisses Monsanto's alternative arguments regarding the exemption for seeds under the MVAT Act and the double taxation issue.V. Facts in the Subway Petition:Subway franchises sandwich shops in India, granting franchisees the right to use its trade marks and confidential information. Subway argues that these transactions are services subject to service tax, not sales under the MVAT Act. The company challenges the applicability of VAT on franchise fees and royalties received from franchisees.VI. Submissions & Findings in Subway:Subway argues that its franchise agreements involve permissive use of trade marks and confidential information, not a transfer of the right to use goods. The agreements are limited in duration and do not grant franchisees exclusive rights. The court agrees with Subway, finding that the franchise agreements involve mere permissive use and are therefore subject to service tax, not VAT. The court rejects the argument that the inclusion of 'franchises' under the MVAT Act automatically subjects all franchise agreements to VAT. The court also finds that the situs of the transaction is in Delhi, where the agreements are executed, not in Maharashtra.VII. Conclusion:The court rules against Monsanto, finding that its transactions are liable to VAT as they involve a transfer of the right to use goods. The court rules in favor of Subway, finding that its franchise agreements are subject to service tax, not VAT. The court declares that the provisions of the MVAT Act do not apply to Subway's franchise fees and royalties and quashes the assessment orders and notices of demand issued by the Maharashtra tax authorities.
TaxTMI 