Duphar Interfran Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that Brand Acquisition Agreement in respect of trademark –‘Crocin’ between parties is an agreement to Sale and such sale is not a sale within the State of Maharashtra hence not liable to sales tax @4% under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Facts- The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner. It is mainly contested that Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the Brand Acquisition Agreement dated 18/01/1996 in respect of trademark ‘Crocin’ entered into by M/s. Duphar Interfran Ltd. with M/s. SKB Play PLC, London is an agreement to sale and such sale is a sale within the State of Maharashtra liable to tax at 4% in terms of Schedule Entry C-I-26 appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Conclusion- Held that the Brand Acquisition Agreement dated 18 January 1996 in respect of trademark- ‘Crocin’ entered into between the parties is an Agreement to Sale and such sale is not a sale within the State of Maharashtra, but shall be deemed to have taken place in the course of export of the said trademark- ‘Crocin’ outside India, as contemplated under Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
