Inter-State sale requires movement of goods to be occasioned by that sale; transport convenience alone is not enough.

A sale is treated as inter-State only when the movement of goods from one State to another is occasioned by that sale or is an incident of the contract of sale. On the facts, the beer transactions were held to be sales first to McDowell & Co., Shertallai, with the petitioner acting only as a sub-distributor; direct despatch from Bangalore to Ernakulam and the use of permits in the petitioner's name did not alter the legal character of the transaction. The declaration-form requirement under the sales tax rules was treated as directory, so its absence did not defeat exemption where tax had already been paid at the earlier sale point.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sales of beer from United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore, were inter-State sales to the petitioner, or sales to McDowell & Co., Shertallai, so that the petitioner's sales to its customers were not the first sales in the State and were not taxable. (ii) Whether the declaration-form requirements under the sales tax rules were mandatory so as to defeat the petitioner's claim to exemption.

Issue (i): Whether the sales of beer from United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore, were inter-State sales to the petitioner, or sales to McDowell & Co., Shertallai, so that the petitioner's sales to its customers were not the first sales in the State and were not taxable.

Analysis: A sale is an inter-State sale only if the movement of goods from one State to another is occasioned by the sale or is an incident of the contract of sale. The arrangement showed that McDowell & Co., Shertallai, was the sole distributor in Kerala and that the petitioner purchased from it as sub-distributor. The goods moved direct from Bangalore to Ernakulam, but the use of import permits in the petitioner's name was only to facilitate transport and avoid a double movement through Shertallai. The legal character of the transaction was not altered by that convenience. The property in the goods passed first to McDowell & Co., Shertallai, and only thereafter to the petitioner, and there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and United Breweries Ltd. on the facts proved. The movement from Bangalore to Ernakulam was therefore referable to the sales to McDowell & Co., Shertallai, and not to a direct sale to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The sales by United Breweries Ltd. were not sales to the petitioner, and the petitioner's sales to its customers were not the first sales in the State and were not liable to tax on that footing.

Issue (ii): Whether the declaration-form requirements under the sales tax rules were mandatory so as to defeat the petitioner's claim to exemption.

Analysis: The rules requiring declaration forms were treated as directory rather than mandatory. The record indicated that tax had already been paid at the earlier point of sale, and the absence of the forms could not by itself defeat the substantive position that the petitioner's sales were not the taxable first sales in the State.

Conclusion: The declaration-form objection was rejected and did not sustain the assessment.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were quashed to the extent they included turnover arising from the beer transactions, while the matter was left to be recomputed on the correct tax basis for the remaining items.

Ratio Decidendi: For a sale to fall within inter-State trade under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the movement of goods from one State to another must be occasioned by that very sale or by an incident of the contract of sale; mere direct despatch, convenience in transport, or the use of permits in the buyer's name does not by itself convert an earlier local sale into a direct inter-State sale.

---