https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343261 Royalty and franchise fees under a non-exclusive franchise and trade mark licence were held not to constitute consideration for transfer of the right to use goods, because the agreements granted only permissive use of a composite business system while ownership, control and the right to exclude others remained with the proprietor. Applying Article 366(29A)(d) and section 48 of the Trade Marks Act, the Court treated mere licence or permitted use as insufficient for deemed sale taxation, so VAT was not attracted. The Court also held that a composite franchise arrangement already taxed as a service could not be artificially severed and recharacterised as a deemed sale under VAT, making the assessments and notices unsustainable. en-us Wed, 17 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343261 Royalty and franchise fees under a non-exclusive franchise and trade mark licence were held not to constitute consideration for transfer of the right to use goods, because the agreements granted only permissive use of a composite business system while ownership, control and the right to exclude others remained with the proprietor. Applying Article 366(29A)(d) and section 48 of the Trade Marks Act, the Court treated mere licence or permitted use as insufficient for deemed sale taxation, so VAT was not attracted. The Court also held that a composite franchise arrangement already taxed as a service could not be artificially severed and recharacterised as a deemed sale under VAT, making the assessments and notices unsustainable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 17 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343261