Tax classification and inter-State sale test upheld in part, with rebate challenge rejected and sale finding remitted.

Classification of refined groundnut oil for rebate purposes was upheld because the differentiation from raw and hydrogenated oil rested on real commercial and manufacturing distinctions, and the withdrawal of rebate was held to have a rational nexus with the rule's object, so the Article 14 challenge failed. In determining the sales character, the correct test was whether the contract itself occasioned movement of goods from one State to another; the Tribunal's approach treating completed delivery within the State as decisive was incorrect, so its finding of intra-State sales was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration on the contract terms.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification withdrawing the rebate in respect of refined groundnut oil was unconstitutional as offending Article 14 of the Constitution. (ii) Whether the transactions in question were inter-State sales or intra-State sales.

Issue (i): Whether the notification withdrawing the rebate in respect of refined groundnut oil was unconstitutional as offending Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The classification between raw oil, refined oil and hydrogenated oil was held to rest on real commercial and manufacturing differences, including differences in process, market treatment, price and demand. In taxing matters the State enjoys wide latitude in selection, and the challenger bears a heavy burden to show hostile discrimination. The withdrawal of rebate from refined oil while leaving other categories within or outside the concession was found to have a rational nexus with the object of the rule.

Conclusion: The notification did not offend Article 14 and the denial of rebate on refined groundnut oil was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the transactions in question were inter-State sales or intra-State sales.

Analysis: A sale is in the course of inter-State trade where the contract itself occasions movement of goods from one State to another across the border. The test applied by the Tribunal, based on completed sale after delivery within the State, was held to be incorrect. On the facts, the transactions were capable of answering the inter-State test and required reconsideration on the terms of the contracts.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding that the transactions were intra-State sales was unsustainable and was set aside for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The assessee failed on the rebate challenge but succeeded on the inter-State sale question, and the matters were sent back for reconsideration by the appellate authority.

---