TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the transaction of sale of scooters amounted to an inter-State sale under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether there was any evidence of a contract of appropriation between the manufacturer and the assessee so as to treat the assessee as having sold the goods at its Jalandhar premises. (iii) Whether the principle relating to the place of delivery of goods in sales tax law displaced the conclusion that the transaction was an inter-State sale.
Issue (i): Whether the transaction of sale of scooters amounted to an inter-State sale under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Analysis: The transaction satisfied the essential ingredients of inter-State sale. The correspondence for purchase and sale was between the purchaser and the manufacturer at Kanpur, the price charged was ex-factory price, the scooter was identified by engine and chassis number, and the goods moved from Uttar Pradesh to Punjab pursuant to the purchase contract. The movement was therefore not independent of the contract of sale.
Conclusion: The transaction was an inter-State sale within section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether there was any evidence of a contract of appropriation between the manufacturer and the assessee so as to treat the assessee as having sold the goods at its Jalandhar premises.
Analysis: The record did not establish any contract of appropriation between the manufacturer and the assessee. The documents showed direct dealings between the purchaser and the manufacturer, and the assessee had no role in effecting a local sale at Jalandhar for handling charges or otherwise.
Conclusion: The alleged local sale or appropriation through the assessee was not proved, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the principle relating to the place of delivery of goods in sales tax law displaced the conclusion that the transaction was an inter-State sale.
Analysis: The reliance on the place of delivery was misplaced because the governing test for inter-State sale is whether the movement of goods from one State to another is occasioned by the contract of sale. The cited principle on customs-bound deliveries concerned appropriation within the State in a different factual setting and did not apply where the sale contract itself originated the movement across State borders.
Conclusion: The place-of-delivery argument did not alter the character of the transaction, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: All the referred questions were answered against the Revenue and the transaction was held to be an inter-State sale, with no local taxable sale through the assessee established on the record.
Ratio Decidendi: A sale is an inter-State sale only when a contract of sale precedes and occasions the movement of goods from one State to another; where the movement is pursuant to the sale contract and the alleged local appropriation is not proved, the transaction cannot be taxed as a local sale merely because delivery is made through an intermediary at the destination State.
TaxTMI 
