Tribunal's Decision Upheld: Goods Movement Classed as Inter-State Sale; Revision Petitions Dismissed.

The HC upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the State's revision petitions. It affirmed that the Tribunal's judgment was consistent with the facts and law, recognizing the movement of goods as an incident of sale and qualifying as an inter-State sale. The determining factor was the goods' movement occasioned by the contract, not property transfer location. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the judgment of the Tribunal is in consonance with the facts and circumstances and the law applicableRs.
2. Whether the Tribunal could hold that the movement of goods was occasioned as an incident of sale even though the contract was silent on this aspectRs.
3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the movement of goods were on account of inter-State sale when in fact the property/goods passes only after erection and commissioning of the lifts and elevators and the sale transaction is completed only after such erection and commissioningRs.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Judgment Consonance with Facts and Law
The High Court examined whether the Tribunal's judgment aligned with the facts and applicable law. The Tribunal had allowed the appeals filed by the respondent-company and rejected the cross-appeal by the Revenue, leading to the Revenue's revision petitions before the High Court. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision, concluding that the Tribunal's judgment was consistent with the facts and law.

Issue 2: Movement of Goods as an Incident of Sale
The Tribunal had determined that the movement of goods was an incident of sale, despite the contract being silent on this aspect. The High Court upheld this view, referencing several precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ram Singh & Sons Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., which established that the movement of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce does not require explicit contractual stipulation.

Issue 3: Inter-State Sale and Property Passing Post-Erection
The High Court evaluated whether the Tribunal correctly held that the movement of goods constituted an inter-State sale, considering that the property in goods passed only after erection and commissioning of lifts and elevators. The Court noted that the respondent-company procured orders in Karnataka, manufactured the lifts in Ghaziabad, and then transported them for installation in Karnataka. The Court cited Oil India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes and English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, emphasizing that the movement of goods in pursuance of a contract qualifies as an inter-State sale, irrespective of where the property in goods passes.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's judgment was not erroneous and upheld the Tribunal's decision. The revision petitions filed by the State Government were dismissed, with parties directed to bear their own costs. The Court reiterated that the determining factor for inter-State sales is the movement of goods occasioned by the contract, not the location of property transfer.

---