https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163720 Transfer of the right to use goods was held not to attract sales tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 where the charging provision fastened liability only on a dealer and the statutory definition of dealer did not clearly include a person merely transferring such right. The court applied the principle that fiscal liability cannot be created by implication or by extending a taxing statute beyond its express terms. Rule 3A(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976, and the related memorandum requiring tax deduction at source, were also held ultra vires because delegated legislation cannot impose a substantive tax burden absent authority in the parent Act. en-us Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2014 18:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163720 Transfer of the right to use goods was held not to attract sales tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 where the charging provision fastened liability only on a dealer and the statutory definition of dealer did not clearly include a person merely transferring such right. The court applied the principle that fiscal liability cannot be created by implication or by extending a taxing statute beyond its express terms. Rule 3A(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976, and the related memorandum requiring tax deduction at source, were also held ultra vires because delegated legislation cannot impose a substantive tax burden absent authority in the parent Act. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163720