1980 (9) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the goods for Rs. 18,000 to one Manjunath Agencies at Bangalore and despatched the same from Coimbatore to Bangalore. As the goods were not accepted by the buyers they found another buyer, raised a separate bill and arranged the goods to be delivered to the subsequent buyer, namely, Gurusiddappa & Sons, for Rs. 15,600. The dealer had included this turnover of Rs. 15,600 in his form 1 return for the month of March, 1972, as an inter-State sale. But at the time of final assessment he contended before the assessing officer that it was neither an inter-State sale assessable under the Central Sales Tax Act in this State nor could it be assessed as a local sale. He contended that it was a local sale at Bangalore and only the State of Karnataka co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is taken from such carrier. The goods in the present case were not delivered to anybody and the journey had not terminated as provided in the explanation till the sale in favour of Gurusiddappa had taken place and in pursuance of that sale it was delivered to the purchaser. The transaction, therefore, will clearly come under section 3(b) and is liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act as an inter-State sale. The other turnover of Rs. 18,450 is covered by three bills-two of them in favour of one Sheik Gulam Dastagir of Mysore and the third in favour of Chalakudi Trading Co., Chalakudi, Kerala. Even in respect of these turnovers, the case of the dealer was that they were all local sales, that the buyers paid cash in advance at Coi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss in this State, we can safely infer that the parties in fact contemplated even at the time of sale the movement of goods from this State to another State. In fact, the Tribunal held that there was no material to conclude that the movement of the goods to the other State was independent of the contract of sale. As we have already pointed out, in the monthly return in form 1 the dealer had shown these transactions as inter-State sales and his contention that they are local sales is an afterthought. Probably this contention is raised because he was not able to get the C forms. If once we come to the conclusion, as we have stated earlier, that there is an agreement express or implied regarding the movement of goods from one State to another, ....