<?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>2019 (5) TMI 502 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379774</link>
    <description>Tax under Section 3-F of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act applies only when there is a transfer of the right to use goods. On the transport arrangement described, the transporter retained control, custody and possession of the tank trucks, bore operating expenses, employed the drivers and staff, and remained responsible for the vehicles. The recipient could use the trucks only for specified transportation work and did not obtain effective control or possession. In the absence of delivery of possession and transfer of effective control, the transaction was not a transfer of the right to use goods, so the levy under Section 3-F was not attracted and the revision was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2019 23:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 502 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379774</link>
      <description>Tax under Section 3-F of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act applies only when there is a transfer of the right to use goods. On the transport arrangement described, the transporter retained control, custody and possession of the tank trucks, bore operating expenses, employed the drivers and staff, and remained responsible for the vehicles. The recipient could use the trucks only for specified transportation work and did not obtain effective control or possession. In the absence of delivery of possession and transfer of effective control, the transaction was not a transfer of the right to use goods, so the levy under Section 3-F was not attracted and the revision was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379774</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>