Inter-State sale and export exemption tests clarified: contractual movement and proof of export determine tax treatment.

A sale is inter-State only where movement of goods from one State to another is an integral term or incident of the contract of sale; if the movement is not occasioned by the bargain, the sale is not inter-State. Duplicate tax cannot be levied on turnover already taxed in another dealer's hands, as that would amount to double taxation. Export exemption fails where customs documents are defective or export outside India is not proved, and the transactions may then be taxed as local sales. Charged sample sales are taxable. Foot, head and bones were treated as exempt meat products, while meat and bacon required fresh factual determination on whether they were sold in sealed containers. Sales to the Ministry of Defence satisfied the statutory conditions for exemption as local sales for official use.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sales routed through Super Bazar were taxable in the hands of the dealer; (ii) whether the sales covered by Bill Nos. 1409 and 1410 and the other disputed export sales were exempt as exports or were liable to be taxed as local sales; (iii) whether sample sales were taxable; (iv) whether foot, bones, meat and bacon were exempt from tax, including whether meat and bacon were sold in sealed containers; and (v) whether sales to the Ministry of Defence were inter-State sales or exempt local sales for official use.

Issue (i): Whether sales routed through Super Bazar were taxable in the hands of the dealer.

Analysis: The sales were effected on Super Bazar cash memos, the tax had already been deposited by Super Bazar, and the corresponding turnover had been returned and taxed in its hands. Once the tax on those sales had already been paid by the Bazar, taxing the dealer again would amount to double taxation on the same turnover.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee, and the dealer is not liable to pay tax on those sales.

Issue (ii): Whether the sales covered by Bill Nos. 1409 and 1410 and the other disputed export sales were exempt as exports or were liable to be taxed as local sales.

Analysis: The export claim for Bill Nos. 1409 and 1410 failed because the customs certificates were defective and did not mention the bill numbers. The other export claim also failed for want of evidence establishing export outside India. Since the transactions were not proved to be exports, they could be treated as local sales and taxed under the local enactment.

Conclusion: The issue is decided partly against the assessee on export exemption, but the disputed turnover is to be treated as local sales and taxed accordingly.

Issue (iii): Whether sample sales were taxable.

Analysis: The price of the samples was charged. They were therefore not free samples, and the turnover was liable to tax.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether foot, bones, meat and bacon were exempt from tax, including whether meat and bacon were sold in sealed containers.

Analysis: Foot and head were treated as meat and exempted, and by the same reasoning bones obtained from the carcass were also held to be exempt. As regards meat and bacon, the taxing authorities proceeded on suspicion that they were sold in sealed containers, but the factual basis was not satisfactorily established. Fresh determination was therefore required on whether the goods were in sealed containers, because only then would the statutory exclusion from exemption apply.

Conclusion: The issue is partly in favour of the assessee in respect of foot and bones, and remanded for fresh determination in respect of meat and bacon.

Issue (v): Whether sales to the Ministry of Defence were inter-State sales or exempt local sales for official use.

Analysis: The contract showed delivery up to the station of despatch and did not require movement of goods from Delhi to another State as an integral part of the bargain. The movement outside Delhi was not occasioned by the contract itself. The sales were made to the Ministry of Defence or its subordinate office for official use, and the prescribed certificates were produced. The statutory conditions for exemption were satisfied.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee, and the sales are exempt as local sales.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeed in part, the exempt and local-sale classifications are accepted on the decided issues, and only the question whether meat and bacon were sold in sealed containers is sent back for reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale is inter-State only when the movement of goods from one State to another is a covenant or incident of the contract of sale, and an exemption based on statutory conditions must be allowed when the prescribed factual and documentary requirements are shown to be satisfied.

---