Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether delivery of goods in Delhi to purchasing dealers, who were distributors/stockists for assigned territories outside Delhi, kept the sales local or made them inter-State sales under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Analysis: The decisive test was whether the contract obliged the purchasing dealers to remove the goods from Delhi to their assigned territories and whether such movement actually occurred. The agreement assigned exclusive territories outside Delhi, fixed selling rates, required monthly stock and market reports, and contemplated transport to the territory outside Delhi with liability for freight and central sales tax if transport was arranged by the seller. On a reading of the contract as a whole, the movement of goods outside Delhi was not incidental or extraneous but was part of the contractual covenant. The fact that delivery was taken ex-works and the goods were stored in Delhi did not alter the character of the transaction where the dealers were contractually bound to move the goods to the allotted territories.
Conclusion: The sales were inter-State sales and not local sales; the assessee's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a sale is made under a contract that, in substance, obliges the purchaser to move the goods from one State to another and the movement is an incident of the contract, the transaction is an inter-State sale under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, even if delivery is taken ex-works in the selling State.