Standing timber is not "goods" for sales tax purposes, so tax set-off could not be refused.

Standing timber covered by a forest contract was treated as not falling within the sales tax definition of "goods" because the statutory meaning extended only to movable property, and standing trees remained attached to the earth. Relying on earlier authority, the Bombay High Court noted that such timber does not answer the description of movable property for sales tax purposes. As a result, tax recovered at the time of the contract could not be denied by treating the timber as goods, and the petitioner was entitled to the set-off.

---

---

Issues: Whether standing timber covered by a forest contract constituted "goods" within the sales tax law so as to justify refusal of set-off of tax recovered at the time of the contract.

Analysis: The contract related to standing timber in the forest. The statutory definition of "goods" extended only to movable property. Standing trees remain attached to the earth and therefore do not answer the description of movable property. The Court also relied on the earlier decision holding that standing timber is not goods for sales tax purposes.

Conclusion: Standing timber was not goods within the meaning of the sales tax law, and the petitioner was entitled to the set-off of the tax recovered by the Government.

---