TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (2) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overed by 3 bills bearing Nos. 410, 426 and 440 within the State of Karnataka during the assessment period October 25, 1984 to November 12, 1985. According to the petitioner, the goods were delivered in the State of Karnataka itself and the purchaser took possession of the same, as can be seen from the signatures of the purchaser's representative in the aforesaid bills. However, in the course of the assessment for the period in question the assessing authority held that the aforementioned sales were interState sales as the goods were despatched by the petitioner as part of the sale transactions. The petitioner's appeals to the appellate authority as well as to the Appellate Tribunal were not successful. Hence this revision petition. 2.. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion the lorry and CST numbers for the convenience of the purchaser and from this fact alone it cannot be inferred that the seller had despatched the goods as part of the sale bargain. It is also quite possible that the numbers were mentioned on behalf of the purchaser after the completion of the sale and possession was taken on behalf of the purchaser. These entries could have been made for the purpose of transportation on behalf of the purchaser. 6. The petitioner pointed out that having regard to the relationship between the seller and the purchaser, the return of the goods in one instance cannot be a ground to hold that sale was not completed earlier. A good businessman, to maintain his goodwill, may accept return of the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic orders received by its head office at Delhi. The contracts of sale were made at Delhi and in pursuance of those contracts, goods were manufactured at Faridabad according to specifications mentioned in the contracts. This, therefore, is not that type of case in which goods are manufactured in the general course of business for being sold as and when offers are received by the manufacturer for their purchase. Contracts of sale were finalised in the instant case at Delhi and specific goods were manufactured at Faridabad in pursuance of those contracts. Those were 'future goods' within the meaning of section 2(6) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. After the goods were manufactured to agreed specifications, they were despatched to the head offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccasioned on sale of the goods. In other words, the requirement to despatch the goods was an integral part of the contract or, at any rate it was a necessary incident to the contract. 9.. The position is made clear by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Suresh Chand Jain [1988] 70 STC 45. At page 47 the court observed thus: "The principles of inter-State sales were well-settled. In Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar [1955] 6 STC 446 (SC) justice Venkatarama Ayyar had held that sale could be said to be in the course of inter-State trade only if two conditions concur, namely, (1) a sale of goods and (2) a transport of those goods from one State to another. Unless both these conditions were satisfied, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal, the High Court found that the goods were not moved out of U.P. in pursuance of an agreement for sale entered into between the assessees and their customers. The existence of T.P. form IV was taken note of but that did not conclude the matter." The above observation makes it clear that there must be evidence that the transportation was occasioned by the contract and as a result goods moved because of the bargain between the parties, from one State to another and that the onus lies on the Revenue to disprove the contention of the appellant that it was not an inter-State sale. In Bhoorey Khan Glass Bangle Factory v. Commissioner, Sales Tax [1974] 34 STC 332 the Allahabad High Court applied the same principle and pointed out that....