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>Crane deployment contracts ruled as hiring arrangements, not deemed sale under Section 2(24) of Maharashtra VAT Act</h1> <h3>The State of Maharashtra Versus Sanghavi Movers Ltd.,</h3> The State of Maharashtra Versus Sanghavi Movers Ltd., - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the transaction of hiring cranes amounts to 'sale' under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the transaction did not amount to 'sale' under the Act.Summary:Issue 1: Whether the transaction of hiring cranes amounts to 'sale' under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.The appeal was filed under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, challenging the judgment of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, which held that the transaction of hiring cranes did not amount to a 'sale' under the Act. The Tribunal had allowed the appeals of the respondent, concluding that the cranes were merely hired and there was no 'transfer of right to use' within the definition of 'sale' under the Act, thus no VAT was payable. The appellant contended that the transaction should be treated as a 'deemed sale' as the cranes were under the control of the lessee (SISL) during the contract period.Issue 2: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the transaction did not amount to 'sale' under the Act.The Tribunal examined the terms and conditions of the contract between the respondent and SISL. It noted that the effective control and possession of the cranes remained with the respondent, and the cranes were merely deployed at the client's site. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no intention to transfer the right to use the cranes to SISL, and the transaction was a clear case of hiring cranes. The Tribunal compared the present case with the decision in General Cranes, where similar conditions were found, and concluded that there was no transfer of the right to use the cranes. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the effective control and possession always remained with the respondent, and there was no transfer of right to use the cranes.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's judgment that the transaction of hiring cranes did not amount to a 'sale' under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The court held that the effective control and possession of the cranes remained with the respondent, and there was no transfer of the right to use the cranes to SISL.
TaxTMI 