Situs of sale for unascertained goods turns on appropriation, and a time-barred assessment is without jurisdiction.

For unascertained goods, the situs of sale under the Central Sales Tax Act is fixed by appropriation to the contract, not merely by shipment or movement between States. On the stated facts, the cement was identified only at Calcutta and delivery occurred after separation from bulk stock, so the taxable situs lay in West Bengal rather than Madras. The text also notes that an assessment made after expiry of the prescribed statutory period is without jurisdiction and unenforceable. Applied together, these principles led to the impugned assessment being treated as invalid both on taxability and limitation grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed transactions were inter-State sales exigible to Central sales tax in Madras, or were out-of-State sales whose situs lay in West Bengal because the goods were unascertained until appropriation and delivery there; (ii) Whether the assessment order was invalid for having been made beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed transactions were inter-State sales exigible to Central sales tax in Madras, or were out-of-State sales whose situs lay in West Bengal because the goods were unascertained until appropriation and delivery there.

Analysis: For unascertained goods, a completed sale arises only upon appropriation to the contract. Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 deals with sales occasioning movement of goods from one State to another, but section 4(2) fixes the situs of sale by reference to the time of contract for specific goods and the time of appropriation for unascertained goods. The cement was shipped in bulk, the ultimate allottee's goods were identified only at Calcutta, and delivery took place there after separation from the bulk. On those facts, the decisive situs for taxation was West Bengal and not Madras.

Conclusion: The disputed transactions were not taxable as inter-State sales in Madras and were out-of-State sales in relation to Madras.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order was invalid for having been made beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

Analysis: The statutory period applicable to the reassessment had expired before the order was actually made. The record showed that the order bore a later date than the date on which the authority sought to treat it as signed, and the Court was satisfied that the order was in fact made after expiry of time. An order made beyond the prescribed period was without jurisdiction and unenforceable.

Conclusion: The assessment order was barred by limitation and was without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded on both the substantive taxability issue and the limitation issue, and the impugned assessment was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the case of unascertained goods, the situs of sale for sales tax purposes is determined by appropriation to the contract under section 4(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and an assessment made after the expiry of the statutory period is without jurisdiction.

---