Reservation of right of disposal delayed title transfer and supported purchase tax liability under the charging provision.

Title to unascertained goods passed only on unconditional appropriation, and shipment under bills of lading retained by the sellers showed reservation of the right of disposal until delivery in Bombay against payment. On the tax issue, the commentary states that section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 applied to purchases from an unregistered person and was not excluded by section 10C, which dealt with a different class of outside-State notified goods delivered for consumption. The stated legal effect is that the purchases fell within the charging provision and purchase tax was leviable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the property in the rubber consignments passed to the purchaser in Cochin or in Bombay. (ii) Whether purchase tax under section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 was leviable on the disputed purchases.

Issue (i): Whether the property in the rubber consignments passed to the purchaser in Cochin or in Bombay.

Analysis: The goods were shipped under bills of lading retained by the sellers and made deliverable through bankers in Bombay on payment of price. In a sale of unascertained goods, property passes only on unconditional appropriation, and shipment under a bill of lading to the seller's order ordinarily shows reservation of the right of disposal. The invoice reference to shipment on account and risk of the buyer did not displace that control, and the surrounding documents showed that title was intended to pass only on delivery in Bombay against payment.

Conclusion: The property in the consignments passed in Bombay, not in Cochin.

Issue (ii): Whether purchase tax under section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 was leviable on the disputed purchases.

Analysis: Section 10(a) applied to purchases made by a dealer from a person who was not a registered dealer, and the term "person" was not confined to dealers carrying on business in Bombay. Section 10C dealt with a different class of transactions, namely notified goods brought from outside the State and directly delivered for consumption, and did not exclude the operation of section 10(a). The two provisions operated in different fields, so the disputed purchases fell within the charging provision of section 10(a).

Conclusion: Purchase tax under section 10(a) was leviable on the disputed purchases.

Final Conclusion: The legal effect of the decision is that the assessee's purchases were taxable and the challenge to levy failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a sale of goods, title does not pass where the seller reserves the right of disposal through the bill of lading, and a purchase tax provision applying to purchases from unregistered persons is not excluded by a separate provision dealing with notified outside-State goods delivered for consumption.

---