TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the agreement for bug fixing, maintenance and support services in relation to ERP software amounted to a contract of service or a sale of software exigible to VAT under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
Analysis: The agreement, read as a whole, showed that the appellant was engaged to provide manpower and maintenance services on QAD's servers for fixing bugs and resolving problem reports, with payment calculated on a per-person monthly basis. The arrangement did not involve transfer of any ready-made or marketable software. Clause 4 made all materials, products and work produced in the course of services the exclusive property of QAD from inception, and the appellant had no independent ownership or right of sale. The activities were confined to restoring functionality of the existing software and did not result in creation of a new commercial commodity capable of being bought and sold. The transaction was therefore a service contract and the authorities below misread the agreement by treating it as a sale of software.
Conclusion: The agreement was a contract of service and not a contract of sale under Section 2(24) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002; the issue is answered in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
