9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party was the owner of the bus No. U.P. 56-3625 and provided the said bus to UPSRTC under the agreement dated August 27, 1997. The assessing authority levied the tax on the amount received towards hire charges from UPSRTC for providing the bus under section 3F of the Act. Against the assessment order, opposite party filed appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon the order of the Tribunal. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2006] 145 STC 91; [2006] 3 VST 95; [2006] 29 NTN 307. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. Section 3F of the Act reads as foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the possession and control of the vehicle remained with UPSRTC, during the period of contract, which shows that the possession was transferred by the opposite party to the UPSRTC for use. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 145 STC 91 (SC); [2006] 3 VST 95 (SC), the Constitution Bench of the apex court held that in a case of transfer of right to use, the goods should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
