1975 (4) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The petitioners claim that the sales in respect of the transactions were sales outside the State and therefore they could not be subject to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. This contention was negatived by the Commercial Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, as well as the Tribunal. Hence the revision petitions. In these revision petitions, it is contended by Sri N. Ramamohana Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the transactions cannot be said to be sales in the course of inter-State trade and they were sales completed outside the State and hence they are not exigible to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. The learned counsel relied upon sections 3 and 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act and contended that unless it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vement of the goods. Sri N. Ramamohana Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the mere fact that the agent booked the orders does not amount to acceptance of the offer of the purchasers and that unless the petitioners had actually sent a communication to the purchasers about the acceptance of the offer contained in the order form, it could not be said that there was a completed contract of sale. But we are not inclined to agree with this submission. The moment the purchasers placed the orders and the agent accepted and took the offers and then registered the same, the contract had come into existence and if in pursuance of that completed contract of sale, movement of goods is occasioned, they fall within the descript .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the goods was occasioned by the sale. Sri N. Ramamohana Rao sought to contend that the property in the goods passed in the other State and not in this State inasmuch as the goods were delivered to the buyers in the other State. But in view of the provisions of sections 3(a) and 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, the place of delivery and the place where the title in the goods passes are not relevant Vide Khosla Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 at 488 (S.C.). It is next contended by Sri Ramamohana Rao that the sale should have preceded the movement of the goods, but we do not think this submission can be accepted. It is enough if the movement of the goods is the result of a covenant or an incide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X