Inter-State sale under CST law includes goods moved as an incident of contractual performance, not only express shipment clauses.

Goods manufactured at Faridabad against specific orders received at the Delhi head office were treated as inter-State sales because their movement from one State to another was a necessary incident of performance of the contracts. The contracts were concluded in Delhi, and the goods were made to agreed specifications as future goods; the fact that property may have passed elsewhere did not matter. For section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, express words requiring movement are not necessary if the movement is occasioned by, or incidental to, the sale. The turnover was therefore assessable by the Haryana/Faridabad authorities, and Delhi could not assess those transactions as intra-State sales.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sales made by the assessee were inter-State sales under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and therefore assessable at Faridabad rather than as intra-State sales in Delhi.

Analysis: The goods were manufactured at Faridabad pursuant to specific orders received at the Delhi head office. The contracts of sale were concluded at Delhi, and the goods were manufactured to agreed specifications as future goods. Their movement from Faridabad to Delhi was not a mere independent stock transfer but a necessary incident of performance of those contracts. For section 3(a), it is not essential that the contract should expressly stipulate the movement in those exact words, so long as the movement is occasioned by, or is incidental to, the contract of sale. The place where property passes is immaterial if the movement of goods from one State to another is the result of the bargain.

Conclusion: The sales were inter-State sales within section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the turnover was correctly held assessable by the Haryana/Faridabad authorities; the Delhi assessment could not stand for those transactions.

---