Strict construction of tax law bars deemed sale without identifiable goods or a clear transfer in service-linked contracts.

Tax liability under the KVAT Act must be clearly brought within the statutory charge, and a demand based on a bare allegation of supply, without identifying the goods or transaction, lacks a proper legal foundation. The Court also held that installation or service charges connected with internet and cable services do not, by themselves, establish a taxable deemed transfer of the right to use goods where no identifiable tangible goods or implied transfer is shown. Electromagnetic waves were treated as not being goods, and strict construction of taxing statutes required the levy to be confined to the statute. The Revenue's challenge failed, and the assessee succeeded on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment notice and consequential order were without jurisdiction or lacked legal basis because the respondent was registered during the relevant period and the notice did not specify the goods or transaction. (ii) Whether the charges collected for supplying and installing goods in connection with internet and cable services were taxable under the KVAT Act as a deemed transfer of the right to use goods.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment notice and consequential order were without jurisdiction or lacked legal basis because the respondent was registered during the relevant period and the notice did not specify the goods or transaction.

Analysis: The notice proceeded on a bald allegation that goods had been supplied, without identifying the particular goods or the sale transaction. The order under challenge was therefore treated as lacking a proper legal foundation for the demand. The Court also noted that strict construction applies in taxing statutes and that tax cannot be imposed by implication beyond the statutory levy.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notice and assessment failed, and the finding that the demand lacked legal basis was upheld against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the charges collected for supplying and installing goods in connection with internet and cable services were taxable under the KVAT Act as a deemed transfer of the right to use goods.

Analysis: The Court accepted the view that electromagnetic waves are not goods and that, on the facts, the transaction between the service provider and the customer did not involve the sale of any tangible goods. It further held that the nature of the arrangement did not establish a taxable transfer of goods merely because installation or service charges were collected, and that the contract had to disclose an implied transfer before a deemed sale could be inferred.

Conclusion: The charges were not taxable under the KVAT Act.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to dislodge the Tribunal's view, and the assessee succeeded on both questions of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In taxing statutes, liability must be clearly brought within the statutory charge, and a deemed sale or transfer of the right to use goods cannot be inferred in the absence of identifiable goods, a clear transfer, and a legally sustainable demand.

---