Export Sale Test: local transfer of property and separate export contracts kept the transaction within sales tax.

The sale of galvanised steel wire ropes was not in the course of export under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, because the assessee's contract with the Bombay purchaser was distinct from the intermediate trader's export arrangement with the foreign buyer. The export was occasioned by the separate contract between the intermediate trader and the foreign buyer, while the assessee's sale was completed within Maharashtra before shipment and transfer of property. FOB terms, export documents, and handing over of the bill of lading after customs clearance did not change the character of the original local sale. The transaction was therefore taxable as an intra-State sale under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sale of galvanised steel wire ropes by the assessee to the Bombay purchaser was a sale in the course of export within section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, or an intra-State sale taxable under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The contract between the assessee and the Bombay purchaser, the purchaser's contract with the intermediate trader, and the latter's contract with the foreign buyer were distinct and independent contracts. The export was occasioned by the contract between the intermediate trader and the foreign buyer, not by the assessee's contract. The clauses referring to FOB price, export documents, and transfer of documents after crossing customs frontiers did not alter the real character of the assessee's sale. The goods were sold and the property passed within Maharashtra before shipment, and the subsequent putting of the goods on board and handing over of the bill of lading were only acts performed in implementation of the separate export arrangement.

Conclusion: The sale was not a sale in the course of export under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, but an intra-State sale taxable under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the finding was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---