Bombay HC: Assignment of “Crocin” Trademark is Export Sale, Not Taxable as Local Sale in Maharashtra

Bombay High Court has held that trademark assignment to UK-based buyer amounts to export under Section 5(1) CST Act

HC: Assignment of “Crocin” Trademark to UK Entity is Export, Not Local Sale

Meetu Kumari | Nov 22, 2025 |

Bombay HC: Assignment of “Crocin” Trademark is Export Sale, Not Taxable as Local Sale in Maharashtra

Bombay HC: Assignment of “Crocin” Trademark is Export Sale, Not Taxable as Local Sale in Maharashtra

M/s Duphar Interfran Ltd., a Mumbai-based pharma company and registered proprietor of the trademark “Crocin,” entered into a Brand Acquisition Agreement on 18 January 1996 assigning the trademark to SmithKline Beecham (SKB), a UK-incorporated entity. The agreement was executed in London, and SKB immediately applied to the Registrar of Trademarks, for recording its name as the new owner.

The Sales Tax authorities treated the assignment as a local sale within Maharashtra and levied 4% tax under Schedule Entry C-I-26 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.

The Commissioner’s determination and the subsequent assessment orders were upheld by the Tribunal, leading the applicant to seek a reference before the High Court.

Main Issue: Whether the assignment of the trademark “Crocin” to a UK-based company constitutes a local sale within Maharashtra or a sale in the course of export under Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

HC’s Decision: The Court held that the sale of an intangible such as a trademark must be understood through the principle mobilia sequuntur personam, movables follow the person. Since “Crocin” was assigned to SKB, whose situs is in the United Kingdom, the trademark’s situs, too, moved with the assignee. Applying this legal fiction, the Court concluded that the assignment resulted in movement of the intangible property outside India, falling within “export” under Section 5(1) CST Act.

The Court noted that registration is neither mandatory for ownership nor determinative of situs, and assignment takes effect upon execution, not upon later entry in the register.

The Court relied on Mahyco Monsanto, CUB Pty Ltd., and Lal Products to reaffirm that the situs of intangible property is the situs of its owner unless legislation states otherwise. Since all rights of the Indian assignor extinguished upon assignment and vested in a foreign entity, the transaction constituted a sale in the course of export, not taxable by Maharashtra.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

StudyCafe Membership

Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button
Join Membership

In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]

Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"




Author Bio
My Recent Articles
Odisha AAR Holds Coursera User Licenses Taxable at 18 Percent GST SC Grants Regular Bail to Future Maker Promoters in Rs. 57 Cr GST Case DGFT Notifies Export Authorization Modalities for 25 LMT Wheat Exports Gujarat High Court Sustains Arrest in Alleged Fake ITC Racket Case J&K HC Directs Assessee to Pursue Statutory GST Appellate RemedyView All Posts