Sale of goods and valid revisional notice upheld where commercial supply, consideration, and retained goods proved taxable transfer.

A transfer of line card testers was treated as a sale because the commercial arrangement showed agreement for transfer of property in goods for consideration, actual dispatch and receipt of the goods, non-return within the stipulated period, and the assessee's own demand for price and damages. The transaction was therefore exigible to tax under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act. The challenge to the revisional notice and order failed because the notice sufficiently indicated the proposed revision and the alleged error, the statutory requirements were met on the facts, and the objection was waived when not raised before the revisional authority or Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether supply of the line card testers amounted to a sale within the meaning of section 2(l) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and was exigible to tax. (ii) Whether the revisional notice and the consequent revisional order under section 40(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 were vitiated for want of particulars or non-compliance with law.

Issue (i): Whether supply of the line card testers amounted to a sale within the meaning of section 2(l) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and was exigible to tax.

Analysis: The statutory definition of sale was held to be wide, but the decisive test remained whether there was an agreement for transfer of property in goods for consideration and whether the goods were in fact supplied in pursuance of that arrangement. The contract, advance payment, bank guarantee, dispatch of the goods, testing at the supplier's premises, receipt by the purchaser, non-return within the prescribed period, and the assessee's own demand for price and damages all showed that the transaction was not a mere agreement to sell. The assessee's own pleadings and conduct before the civil court and the Allahabad High Court were treated as confirming completion of the sale.

Conclusion: The transaction was held to be a sale and was rightly brought to tax; the finding in favour of taxability was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional notice and the consequent revisional order under section 40(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 were vitiated for want of particulars or non-compliance with law.

Analysis: The notice was found to have sufficiently indicated the proposed revision and the alleged error in the assessment order. The challenge was also rejected on the ground that no such objection had been taken before the revisional authority or the Tribunal, amounting to waiver of the plea at the writ stage. The Court further held that the requirements of section 40(1) were adequately met on the facts and that the petitioner could not belatedly assail the notice for want of detail.

Conclusion: The revisional notice and the revisional order were upheld; the objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in its entirety, and the assessment revision bringing the transaction to sales tax and sustaining the revisional action was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of goods pursuant to a commercial arrangement, supported by consideration and followed by supply and retention of the goods, constitutes a sale even if the buyer disputes quality, and a procedural objection to revisional notice cannot be raised for the first time in writ proceedings when it was not pressed before the statutory authorities.

---