Accrual of sale proceeds turns on passage of title, and rebate fails where disposal rights are reserved.

Income from mining sales accrues where the seller acquires an enforceable right to receive the sale price, which in a sale of goods depends on where property passes. On the stated facts, the seller retained control of the railway receipts, consigned the goods to self, and the purchasers received delivery only after paying the bank, so the seller reserved the right of disposal and title did not pass at Bhilwara. The bank's role did not make it the purchaser's agent or amount to receipt of price in the Part B State. The rebate under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 was therefore not available, and apportionment based on manufacturing activity was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to rebate under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, in respect of income from its mining business for the relevant assessment years, having regard to the place where the sale proceeds accrued or arose.

Analysis: The governing question was where the income, or the right to receive the sale price, accrued. Income does not accrue by actual receipt alone; it accrues when the assessee acquires a right to receive it. In sales of goods, the place of accrual depends on where the sale is effected, which in turn depends on where property in the goods passes. Under the sale contracts, the goods were sold on Bhilwara godown delivery but were consigned to self, the railway receipts were retained in the seller's control and sent through bank, and the purchasers obtained delivery only on payment to the bank. On those facts, the seller had reserved the right of disposal, so property did not pass at Bhilwara. The bank's involvement did not make it the purchaser's agent or convert the arrangement into receipt of sale price at Bhilwara. The argument for apportionment based on manufacturing and processing activities was not available, as no such issue had been raised or decided before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the rebate. The sale proceeds accrued in Part A and Part C States where the purchasers paid and obtained title, not in Part B State, and the claim for apportionment was not entertainable.

---