<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (11) TMI 563 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162642</link>
    <description>A contractual arrangement for exclusive use of identified equipment, tools and machinery was treated as a transfer of the right to use goods. The contractor retained ownership and physical possession, but the equipment was deployed solely for the oil company&#039;s work and remained under its operational control, inspection and supervision. Applying Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India and the definition of sale under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, actual delivery of possession was not essential. The decisive factor was that the transferee acquired the legal right to use the goods for consideration to the exclusion of the transferor during the contract period, making the arrangement a taxable deemed sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 563 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162642</link>
      <description>A contractual arrangement for exclusive use of identified equipment, tools and machinery was treated as a transfer of the right to use goods. The contractor retained ownership and physical possession, but the equipment was deployed solely for the oil company&#039;s work and remained under its operational control, inspection and supervision. Applying Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India and the definition of sale under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, actual delivery of possession was not essential. The decisive factor was that the transferee acquired the legal right to use the goods for consideration to the exclusion of the transferor during the contract period, making the arrangement a taxable deemed sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162642</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>