TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1957 (8) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se provide, no law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of any goods where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce:" and the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the transactions with which we are concerned took place "in the course of inter- State trade or commerce" and are as a result exempt from taxation under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125. 3.. The assessment order impugned is Exhibit C, an order of the 2nd respondent dated 24th November, 1955. The order is not challenged on any ground other than the one mentioned above and it is hence un- necessary to consider any of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Ge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he non-resident constituents. The petitioners also pay the price on behalf of the non- resident constituents. After the purchase, the petitioners take signed memos from the constituents confirming the purchase. Subsequently the goods are despatched to the purchasers by the petitioner. The bills sent to to the purchasers contain the amounts spent by the petitioners on account of packing, postage, and other incidental and customary charges" (paragraph 2). 6.. It is not contended that transportation across the State frontier is a term of the contract of sale and the question for determination is whether in the absence of such a term the purchases can be considered as purchases which took place "in the course of inter-State trade or commerce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sales con- tract did not contemplate or require shipment from a point outside the State, although shipment was in fact so made to fill the contract. This doctrine was established by the Wiloil case 294 U.S. 169. (4) [1955] 6 S.T.C. 446, (page 149). 8.. The statement of Venkatarama Ayyar, J., has also been adopted as a correct statement of the law by the Madras High Court in Indian Coffee Board v. State of Madras[1956] 7 S.T.C. 135. and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Madras[1957] 8 S.T.C. 210.. In the former case the Court said: "A sale completed by delivery within the State of Madras to the purchaser or his agent does not come within the scope of Article 286(2) even if the purchaser bought the goods with the intention of transporting the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Acting, C.J., said: "It is not necessary, for the purposes of this appeal, to enter upon a discussion as to what is exactly meant by inter-State trade or commerce or by the phrase 'in the course of', for it is common ground that the sales or purchases made by the appellant company which are sought to be taxed by the State of Bihar actually took place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce". According to Mr. Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner, how- ever, the statement of Venkatarama Ayyar, J., is opposed to the majority decision in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew-Nut Factory [1953] 4 S.T.C. 205. and should hence be considered as of no effect. One of the groups of purchases in that case consisted of purch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as, J., in his dissenting judgment, quoted with approval the following passage from the judgment of Dixon, J., in Clements and Marshall Pty. Ltd. v. Field Peas Marketing Board[1947] 76 C.L.R. 401 (429).: "We should consider the commercial significance of transactions and whether they form an integral part of a continuous flow or course of trade, which, apart from the theoretical legal possibilities, must commercially involve transfer from one State to another" and in State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd.[1953] 4 S.T.C. 133. Bose, J., in his dissenting judgment said: "A, a Bombay dealer, sells goods to B, a dealer in Madras, for con- sumption in Madras. I will assume that delivery is made to B himself in Bombay and that he carries th....