https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234256 Passive infrastructure sharing was held not to amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under Article 366(29A)(d) because the owner retained ownership, possession, title, control and the right to grant access. Telecom operators received only permissive access to the site to install and operate their own active equipment, together with supporting services such as power, maintenance, security and environmental support. As no possession, effective control or transferable interest in the infrastructure passed to the operators, the arrangement was characterised as a licence and service contract, not a deemed sale. The transaction was therefore outside VAT under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. en-us Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234256 Passive infrastructure sharing was held not to amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under Article 366(29A)(d) because the owner retained ownership, possession, title, control and the right to grant access. Telecom operators received only permissive access to the site to install and operate their own active equipment, together with supporting services such as power, maintenance, security and environmental support. As no possession, effective control or transferable interest in the infrastructure passed to the operators, the arrangement was characterised as a licence and service contract, not a deemed sale. The transaction was therefore outside VAT under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234256