https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753215 Royalty under a franchise agreement for use of a trademark was treated as a non-exclusive licence, not a transfer of the right to use goods, because ownership and effective control of the mark remained with the franchisor. Applying the statutory definitions of franchise and sale, the Court held that the arrangement lacked the exclusive legal right necessary to amount to a deemed sale under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. It also applied the principle that consideration already subjected to service tax cannot be recharacterised as a sale for VAT. The royalty was therefore not liable to VAT. en-us Fri, 24 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 May 2024 08:30:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753215 Royalty under a franchise agreement for use of a trademark was treated as a non-exclusive licence, not a transfer of the right to use goods, because ownership and effective control of the mark remained with the franchisor. Applying the statutory definitions of franchise and sale, the Court held that the arrangement lacked the exclusive legal right necessary to amount to a deemed sale under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. It also applied the principle that consideration already subjected to service tax cannot be recharacterised as a sale for VAT. The royalty was therefore not liable to VAT. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 24 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753215