Transferable REP licences and Exim scrips qualify as goods, not actionable claims, for sales tax purposes.

Freely transferable REP licences and Exim scrips with present commercial value were treated as movable property and goods for sales tax purposes, because the term "goods" was given a broad meaning and the rights themselves were bought and sold in the market. They were not actionable claims, since they were existing marketable rights rather than mere debts or contingent claims. They also did not fall within the securities exclusion, and the State enactments were within legislative competence under the sales tax entry. The transfers were therefore taxable as sales of goods, and the challenge to State levy failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether REP licences and Exim scrips are goods and movable property liable to sales tax on transfer; (ii) Whether such licences and scrips are actionable claims; (iii) Whether they fall within the exclusion for securities or within Union legislative competence so as to bar State sales tax.

Issue (i): Whether REP licences and Exim scrips are goods and movable property liable to sales tax on transfer

Analysis: The expression "goods" in the relevant sales tax enactments and in the constitutional scheme was given a broad meaning, covering all kinds of movable property. The licences and scrips had an inherent commercial value, were freely transferable, were bought and sold in the market, and were treated as merchandise. Their value did not depend on the actual import of goods under them; the right itself was capable of transfer for consideration.

Conclusion: REP licences and Exim scrips are goods and movable property, and their transfer is exigible to sales tax.

Issue (ii): Whether such licences and scrips are actionable claims

Analysis: An actionable claim is a claim to a debt or to a beneficial interest in movable property not in possession. The licences and scrips were not mere claims or expectancies; they were existing, freely marketable rights having present value of their own. They were distinguishable from a mere claim to relief or a contingent chose-in-action.

Conclusion: REP licences and Exim scrips are not actionable claims.

Issue (iii): Whether they fall within the exclusion for securities or within Union legislative competence so as to bar State sales tax

Analysis: The licences and scrips did not answer the statutory definition of securities, and no valid declaration bringing them within that category was shown for the relevant period. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the State enactments were laws imposing tax on the sale of goods under the State taxing entry, and were not laws on customs duties or a Union subject.

Conclusion: The securities exclusion does not apply, and the State Legislatures had competence to levy sales tax on the transfers.

Final Conclusion: The transfers of REP licences and Exim scrips were held taxable as sales of goods, the contrary challenge failed, and the batch of appeals and writ petitions was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A freely transferable commercial right having present market value and capable of being bought and sold is movable property and goods for sales tax purposes, unless it squarely falls within a statutory exclusion such as actionable claims or securities.

---