2018 (12) TMI 612

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal was legally justified in holding that transfer of right to use of non-exclusive trade mark license was not taxable in view of the division bench judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of M/s G.D. Goenka (P) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others ?" 3. These revisions arise out of the assessment orders for A.Y. 2007-08 (U.P.) and (Central). The facts obtaining in the present assessment year are identical, as have been taken note by this Court in the decision taken on 04.12.2013 in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 673 of 2013. It appears that the identical question of law had been raised in that revision as well. While that revision was for the A.Y. 2006-07, this Court dismissed the same on the following reasoning: "The r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of right to use" and not merely a licence to use the goods; and (e) having transferred the right to use the goods during the period for which it is to be transferred, the owner cannot again transfer the same rights to the others. Undoubtedly 'trade mark' is a tradeable commodity as goods but in the instant case, the right to use of the trade mark has been permitted at the same time to various different companies as has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the revision itself and there is nothing on record which could establish that the transferee assessee having so permitted the use of trade mark has excluded itself from its use. In view of above, the 4th and 5th conditions as laid down by the Supreme Court do not stand fulfill....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 09.12.2016, the earlier decision of the learned single judge of this Court (in inter parties Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 673 of 2013) loses its binding force. 6. Accordingly, it has been submitted that it is the decision of the division bench, which has to be applied and, therefore, it has been submitted that the present revisions deserve to be allowed. 7. Sri Nikhil Agrawal, learned counsel for the assesseerespondent in both the revisions on the other hand submits that, in the first place, the controversy involved before the division bench in the case of M/s G.D. Goenka (P) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (supra) was different from the one involved in the present case. While the case before the division bench involved transfer of non-exclusiv....