Inter-State sale requires contractual movement of goods; post-delivery dispatch by buyer did not make the sale taxable.

A sale is treated as inter-State only where the contract contains an express or implied stipulation for movement of goods from one State to another and the movement occurs in pursuance of that contract; the Revenue bears the burden of proving that a sale said to be local is actually inter-State. On the facts, the goods were delivered at Hyderabad, title passed on delivery there, and the later movement by the buyer or its agent to another State was not movement occasioned by the respondent's sale. The place of payment was immaterial, and the authorisations showed post-delivery dispatch for the purchaser's own use. The sales were therefore local and the tax demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sales effected by the respondent were inter-State sales liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: An inter-State sale requires an agreement to sell containing an express or implied stipulation for movement of goods from one State to another, actual movement of the goods in pursuance of that agreement, and a concluded sale in the State to which the goods are sent. The burden lies on the Revenue to establish that a sale claimed to be local is in fact inter-State. On the facts, the goods were delivered at Hyderabad, the property in the goods passed there on delivery, and the subsequent movement by the buyer or its agent to another State did not show that the sale itself occasioned the movement. The place of payment was immaterial. The authorisations relied on by the Department also showed post-delivery dispatch by the purchaser for its own use, not movement pursuant to the respondent's sale.

Conclusion: The sales were local sales and not inter-State sales; the tax demand was not sustainable.

---