Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1982 (2) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the purchase of the goods manufactured by the assessee. The orders were placed by them with the Bombay branch of the assessee. The orders, when received by the Bombay branch, were forwarded by that branch to the head office at Madras. The head office then consigned these goods by lorry to the Bombay branch warehouse, mentioning in the lorry waybill, that the goods had been despatched against orders placed by the Canteen Stores Department. When the goods reached Bombay, they were cleared by the Bombay branch and immediately supplied to the Canteen Stores Department, after raising invoices in terms of the orders already placed. This course of transaction characterises all the amounts of turnover which are now in dispute in these revisions. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elf by means of these stock transfers. The documents which evidenced the movement of goods in these cases were described by the assessee as "stock transfer notes", and they were very much relied upon in argument. If all that the stock transfer notes evidence were displacements of goods from the head office to the Bombay branch, then there would be no difficulty at all in accepting the contention that there was no inter-State sale for the simple reason that the transfers of goods from Madras to Bombay involved no sale at all. But, the very "stock transfer notes" relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee could hardly be regarded as evidence of mere routine inter-branch consignment of goods from the head office to the branch office, un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntention of the learned counsel was sought to be supported by reference to a passage from the judgment of Sarkar, J., in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited v. S.R. Sarkar [1960] 11 STC 655 at 679 (SC). The passage relied on by the learned counsel is as follows: "The question then arises, when does a sale occasion the movement of goods sold? It seems clear to us that a sale can occasion the movement of the goods sold only when the terms of the sale provide that the goods would be moved; in other words, a sale occasions a movement of the goods when the contract of sale so provides." The learned judge was there seeking to construe the provision which is in point in the present discussion, namely, section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, whi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sale, is also to be brought within the fold of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The subsequent trend of judicial opinion only makes further clear the view expressed by the majority in Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. Sarkar [1960] 11 STC 655 (SC). Perhaps the clearest latter-day exposition of the majority opinion is to be found in Oil India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes [1975] 35 STC 445 (SC). The crucial passage in the judgment in this case may be reproduced as under: "No matter in which State the property in the goods passes, a sale which occasions 'movement of goods from one State to another is a sale in the course of inter-State trade'. The inter-State movement must be the result of a covenant express or implied in the contrac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... course of inter-State trade or commerce as such a sale or purchase occasioned the movement of the goods from one State to another. The presence of an intermediary such as the seller's own representative or branch office, who initiated the contract may not make the matter different. Such an interception by a known person on behalf of the seller in the delivery State and such person's activities prior to or after the implementation of the contract may not alter the position." In the present case there is only one difference on the facts, which is not material to the application of the principle. The head office at Madras did not despatch the goods direct to the canteen stores department which placed the orders, but it sent the goods to th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates