SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 462

2001(2) Supreme 301
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Tata Consultancy Services etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2582 of 1998
With
C.A. No. 2583, 2584, 2585 and 2586 of 1998
Decided on 13-3-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : G.S. Jetly, Sr. Advocate, Pradeep Jetly, A.S. Bhasme and Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : K. Ramakumar, B. Sridhar, Ms. Shantinarayana, Y. Subba Rao, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Authoritative pronouncement by a Larger Bench is required as the question whether softwares are "goods" liable to sales tax under A.P. General Sales Tax Act.

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act-Section 2(h)-Definition of goods liable to Sales Tax-A.P. High Court dividing software in two categories (i) software which is specialised and (ii) software which is standardised and held the later category is taxable as "goods"-Appeal to Supreme Court-Division Bench finding divergent case law-Importance of the matter having global importance-Authoritative pronouncement is required by a Bigger Bench-Sent to CJI for reference to a larger Bench. (Paras 5 to 7)

       

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-In these matters the Andhra Pradesh High Court concluded that software is of two categories -(i) software which is specialised and exclusively custom-made to cater to the needs of individual clients, and (ii) software which is standardised and marketed for the use of certain classes of clients, like the Oracle, Lotus, Master Key, N-Export, Ex. Unigraphics, etc. and held that for the purpose of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) it is not necessary to consider whether the definition of goods in Section 2(h) of the Act has to be read down so as to exclude software from it. The High Court took the view that the first category may not constitute goods for the purpose of the Act, while the second category are goods and held that they are leviable to tax.

2. The case advanced on behalf of the appellants is that the branded software which is an intellectual property being product of thought, creativity and intellectual efforts cannot be goods for the purpose of the Act; that it is an intangible intellectual property and, therefore, cannot be goods; that software is an essentially classic form of intellectual property; that the value of the tapes on which it is sold is much lesser than the value of the software programme itself; that the software programme is always transferred into the hardware and then the tapes are useless; that, therefore, the licensee/payer is paying for the programee and not for the tapes or dises; these discs are different from music cassettes and video tapes, music reels, etc. because the programme on the discs is separable and is always transferred to the hardware, whereas in the case of music cassettes, etc. though they may be separable and can be transferred to another cassette or tape this is not generally done and the music or movie always remains on the tangible property on which it was stored when sold; that they are other methods by which a software programme can be installed, like, the programme directly keying in the programme through the console keyboard; that what is transferred is the right to use the programme (which is a set of instructions) and not the tape on which it is stored; that though software has a physical component, these physical components are merely tangential incidents of a computer programme, they do not change the programme s clearly intangible character; that the essence of the contract is the right to use the software, therefore, the essence of the transaction test must be applied; that in PSI Data Systems Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise1, it is held that if discs, floppies, CD ROMs are sold along with the computer, their value is not to be included for assessing excise duty; that a software programme is a process that can be used to achieve a certain result whereas a music cassette etc. is the end product in itself.

3. While on behalf of the respondents the case of the appellants is resisted on the ground that the magnetic tapes, discs, are necessary to carry the programme and for the transfer to the hardware and, therefore, the value of the tapes is equal to the value of the programme; that the fact that the programme can be transmitted through some other means does not take away from the fact that in fact a tangible means was actually used; that music cassettes, phonographs and movie tapes are indistinguishable from discs and tapes because (i) they can also be transmitted by telephone lines and through radio waves, and (ii) the contents of music cassettes etc. are also transferable to some other medicum belonging to the purchaser of the right to use; that software is tangible property and software recorded in physical form becomes inextricably linked with the corporeal object upon which it is stored, that is, a disc, tape, hard drive, etc.; that the fact that the information can be transferred and then physically recorded in another medium does not make software any different from any other typ






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top