https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357620 Brand franchise fees received from contract bottling units were not treated as consideration for a transfer of the right to use the brand name or trade mark, because the units manufactured beer only to the assessee's specifications, lacked effective control over the brand, and operated as captive manufacturers without independent commercial exploitation. The receipt was instead characterised as payment for a service arrangement, particularly since service tax was paid on the same amount. Applying the settled principle against double taxation of the same transaction under sales tax and service tax, the Court held that sales tax was not leviable and the tax, penalty, and interest could not be sustained. en-us Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357620 Brand franchise fees received from contract bottling units were not treated as consideration for a transfer of the right to use the brand name or trade mark, because the units manufactured beer only to the assessee's specifications, lacked effective control over the brand, and operated as captive manufacturers without independent commercial exploitation. The receipt was instead characterised as payment for a service arrangement, particularly since service tax was paid on the same amount. Applying the settled principle against double taxation of the same transaction under sales tax and service tax, the Court held that sales tax was not leviable and the tax, penalty, and interest could not be sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357620