https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164909 A contract for well-logging, perforating and wireline services was examined to determine whether it transferred the right to use goods under Article 366(29A)(d) and the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976. Because the equipment remained the contractor's exclusive property and possession, the contractor retained operational custody and control, and the corporation received only service performance without the legal right to use the equipment to the exclusion of the contractor, the arrangement was held to be a service contract and not a deemed sale. As the Act did not impose sales tax on such a transaction, the tax-deduction demand treating it as taxable transfer was without jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164909 A contract for well-logging, perforating and wireline services was examined to determine whether it transferred the right to use goods under Article 366(29A)(d) and the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976. Because the equipment remained the contractor's exclusive property and possession, the contractor retained operational custody and control, and the corporation received only service performance without the legal right to use the equipment to the exclusion of the contractor, the arrangement was held to be a service contract and not a deemed sale. As the Act did not impose sales tax on such a transaction, the tax-deduction demand treating it as taxable transfer was without jurisdiction. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164909