Self-despatch to own branches is not "disposal" under sales tax law; notification taxing it was ultra vires.

Mere despatch of manufactured goods by a dealer to its own branches outside the State, while ownership, title, possession and control remain with the dealer, does not amount to "disposal" otherwise than by way of sale under section 9(1)(a)(ii) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The phrase "disposes of" was read in its ordinary and legal sense as requiring transfer, alienation, or abandonment of control, and mere movement of goods was held insufficient. A notification taxing such self-despatch therefore travelled beyond the parent provision, conflicted with section 9, and was ultra vires. Assessment orders based on that notification could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether mere despatch of manufactured goods by a dealer to its own branches outside the State, while retaining title and possession, amounts to "disposes of the manufactured goods in any manner otherwise than by way of sale" under section 9(1)(a)(ii) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, and whether the impugned notification levying purchase tax on such despatch is valid.

Analysis: The phrase "disposes of" was construed in its ordinary and legal sense as denoting transfer, alienation, or at least abandonment of control over the goods. A mere movement of goods from one place to another, where ownership, title, possession, and control remain with the dealer, was held not to amount to disposal. The broader statutory context did not justify equating despatch to self with disposal, because that construction would create anomalous results and tax mere inter-branch movement even within the State. Authorities construing other sales tax enactments were distinguished because those statutes separately dealt with despatch outside the State. On that interpretation, the notification, by taxing mere despatch to own branches, went beyond section 9 and conflicted with the parent provision.

Conclusion: Mere despatch of goods to a dealer's own branch outside the State, with title and possession retained, does not fall within section 9(1)(a)(ii). The notification was ultra vires and liable to be struck down, and the assessment orders founded on it could not stand.

---