https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760525 Movement of goods from Rajasthan to depots in Bihar and Jharkhand was held to be stock transfer, not an inter-State sale under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, because the movement was not occasioned by any concluded sale or agreement to sell. The Liquor Policy required supply only against Orders for Supply, imposed no minimum purchase obligation, and the Master Agreement merely regulated delivery, risk, storage, and pricing without creating a binding sale at the time of dispatch. Since the actual sale was concluded later on issuance of Orders for Supply from depot stock, the disputed central sales tax liability on the stock movements could not stand. en-us Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Oct 2024 08:19:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760525 Movement of goods from Rajasthan to depots in Bihar and Jharkhand was held to be stock transfer, not an inter-State sale under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, because the movement was not occasioned by any concluded sale or agreement to sell. The Liquor Policy required supply only against Orders for Supply, imposed no minimum purchase obligation, and the Master Agreement merely regulated delivery, risk, storage, and pricing without creating a binding sale at the time of dispatch. Since the actual sale was concluded later on issuance of Orders for Supply from depot stock, the disputed central sales tax liability on the stock movements could not stand. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760525