Movable property and incomplete film can be goods, but a solitary sale is taxable only if made in the course of business.

An incomplete film and other movable items transferred under an agreement fell within "goods" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 because the definition covered movable property and the Copyright Act was irrelevant to sales tax liability. The transfer of title in movable items therefore did not escape the concept of sale of goods. However, the solitary sale was not shown to have been made in the course of business: the assessee was not a film producer, only one such transaction was shown, and no profit motive or business activity was established. The transaction was accordingly not exigible to tax.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an incomplete film and other movable items transferred under the agreement constituted goods and a sale of goods within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. (ii) Whether the solitary transaction of sale was exigible to tax as having been effected in the course of the respondent's business.

Issue (i): Whether an incomplete film and other movable items transferred under the agreement constituted goods and a sale of goods within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The statutory definition of goods in section 2(j) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 covered all kinds of movable property. The record showed transfer of title in movable items, and the applicability of the Copyright Act was held irrelevant to determine sales tax liability. The earlier approach treating the incomplete film as outside the definition of goods was rejected.

Conclusion: The incomplete film and the movable items transferred under the agreement were goods, and the transaction was not excluded from the concept of sale of goods on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the solitary transaction of sale was exigible to tax as having been effected in the course of the respondent's business.

Analysis: The assessee was registered as a dealer in publicity material, not as a film producer. The record indicated only one transaction of the kind, and there was no finding that the sale was undertaken in the course of business with a profit motive. On the facts found, the sale appeared to be an isolated disposal in adverse circumstances rather than a business activity.

Conclusion: The solitary sale was not proved to be a transaction in the course of business and was not exigible to tax.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, but the dismissal rested on the ground that the transaction was not taxable as a business sale, not on the ground that the subject matter was outside the definition of goods.

Ratio Decidendi: For sales tax liability, a movable asset may constitute goods even if it is an incomplete film, but tax is attracted only if the transfer is shown to be a sale in the course of business.

---