Branch transfers for local sale are not inter-State sales where evidence supports genuine branch operations and no sale contract occasioned movement.

Goods moved from a head office to a genuine Delhi branch for local sale were treated as branch transfers, not inter-State sales liable to Central sales tax. The Tribunal found that the branch received the goods, entered them in stock, handled and sold them locally, and accounted for the sale proceeds at Delhi. The Court held that no contract of sale was shown to have occasioned the movement of goods, and that the Tribunal's evidence-based factual findings were not shown to be perverse or unsupported. In revisional jurisdiction, those findings could not be disturbed, so the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods transferred from the head office to the Delhi branch constituted inter-State sales exigible to Central sales tax, or merely branch transfers not liable to such tax.

Analysis: The Tribunal's finding was that the assessee had a genuine branch office at Delhi, that the goods sent from the head office were received, entered in stock, handled, and sold by the branch office, and that the sale proceeds were received and accounted for at Delhi. The Court held that the facts were materially different from the cited Supreme Court decision and that the movement of goods was not shown to have been occasioned by any contract of sale between the head office and the purchasers. The conclusion of the Tribunal was based on evidence and recorded findings of fact, which could not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction in the absence of any showing that the findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The transactions were branch transfers and not inter-State sales; the revisions were liable to fail.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's stock transfers to the Delhi branch were upheld as branch transfers, and the Revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's order was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows that goods were transferred to a branch office for local sale by that branch and the finding is not shown to be perverse, such transfers cannot be treated as inter-State sales merely because the goods moved from one State to another.

---