Case Details: Future Brands Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Delhi South (2025) 31 Centax 83 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
- S/Shri Kumar Visalaksh, Udit Jain, Ms Akanksha Dikshit, Advs. & Vishnu Kant, AOR, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the levy of Service Tax or Value Added Tax on income received in relation to exclusive brands. The High Court held that the question as to whether such income attracts Service Tax or Value Added Tax requires examination of the nature of the right transferred by the assessee, with due regard to the clauses of the agreement and the definition of ‘permitted use’ under Section 2(r) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It further held that the impugned order was appealable and that the assessee should be relegated to the appellate forum for appropriate adjudication. The writ petition was therefore not entertained, and the matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court and accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Court endorsed the High Court’s view that the determination of taxability in such cases hinges on the nature of the right transferred, which must be assessed with reference to the contractual terms and relevant statutory definitions. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised where an efficacious alternate remedy is available.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Future Brands Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 31 Centax 82 (Del.) — Affirmed [Para 1]
