TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the sub-licensing of Bollgard technology to seed companies amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods and a deemed sale, or only permissive use and a service; (ii) Whether the franchise agreements granted by Subway amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods and a deemed sale, or only permissive use and a service.
Issue (i): Whether the sub-licensing of Bollgard technology to seed companies amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods and a deemed sale, or only permissive use and a service.
Analysis: The legal inquiry was whether the transaction satisfied Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India and the corresponding deeming provisions under the MVAT Act. The decisive factors were the real nature of the transaction, the vesting of control over the identified technology embodied in the donor seeds, and whether the licensee could use the seeds and embedded technology as it wished during the term of the arrangement. The Court held that the technology was embedded in the supplied seeds, that the sub-licensee obtained effective control over those seeds and the embedded technology, and that Monsanto India was divested of control over the portion transferred. The agreement was therefore not a mere license to use, and the fact that the technology could be licensed to others did not negate the transfer in respect of the identified seeds supplied.
Conclusion: The sub-licensing arrangement constituted a transfer of the right to use goods and was a deemed sale. This issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the franchise agreements granted by Subway amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods and a deemed sale, or only permissive use and a service.
Analysis: The Court examined the franchise arrangement as a whole and found that it conferred only a limited, time-bound permission to display the marks and use specified systems and know-how. The franchisee could not sub-franchise, could not continue use after expiry or termination, and remained under pervasive control of Subway. The arrangement lacked the incidents of exclusivity and unfettered control characteristic of a transfer of the right to use. The statutory inclusion of franchises within the MVAT framework did not automatically convert every franchise agreement into a sale; the real nature of the particular transaction remained decisive.
Conclusion: The franchise agreements were merely permissive use and constituted a service, not a deemed sale. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition concerning Monsanto failed because the technology sub-licensing transaction was taxable as a deemed sale, while the writ petition concerning Subway succeeded because its franchise arrangements were only service transactions and not liable to VAT.
Ratio Decidendi: The character of a transaction for sales tax purposes depends on its real substance: where the transferee obtains effective control over an identified good and the transferor is divested of that control, the transaction is a transfer of the right to use goods, but where the arrangement is only a limited, revocable permission under continuing control of the grantor, it remains a service.
TaxTMI 
