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

1978 (3) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dras receives orders from the customers and transmits those orders to the head office at Thalore for compliance with the customers' requirements. The head office at Thalore despatches the consignments of packing cases to the branch office in Madras. The branch office delivers the cases to the customers in execution of the orders placed by them. The Tribunal found that sale had occasioned the movement of the goods from Kerala State to Madras. The case seems to be directly covered by the judgment of a Division Bench in Packwell Packing Cases v. State of KeralaPage 183 infra. (T.R.C. Nos. 20, 21 and 23 of 1975), a copy of which, for the sake of convenience, will be appended to, and will form part of this judgment. But counsel for the assessee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent of the goods and the movement of goods being in pursuance of a contract which eventually merges into a sale the movement must be deemed to be occasioned by the sale. The present case clearly falls within this category. Case No. II.-A, who is a dealer in State X, agrees to sell goods to B but he books the goods from State X to State Y in his own name and his agent in State Y receives the goods on behalf of A. Thereafter the goods are delivered to B in State Y and if B accepts them a sale takes place. It will be seen that in this case the movement of goods is neither in pursuance of the agreement to sell nor is the movement occasioned by the sale. The seller himself takes the goods to State Y and sells the goods there. This is, therefor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iverting the goods which were sent to the Bombay buyer. When the movement of goods from one State to another is an incident of the contract it is a sale in the course of inter-State sale. It does not matter in which State the property in the goods passes. What is decisive is whether the sale is one which occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. The inter-State movement must be the result of a covenant, express or implied, in the contract of sale or an incident of the contract. It is not necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State movement in order that the sale may be deemed to have occasioned such movement. It is also not necessary for a sale to be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Madras factory and the buyer and that it was the Madras factory which Pursuant to the covenant in the contract of sale caused the movement of the goods from Madras to Bombay. The inter-State movement of the goods was a result of the contract of sale and the fact that the contract emanated from correspondence which passed between the Bombay branch and the company could not make any difference." (underlining* ours) In the light of the principle thus expounded by the Supreme Court, the reasoning and the conclusion of the Tribunal are correct and warrant no interference. We affirm the decision of the Tribunal and dismiss these tax revision cases with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. [The judgment of the Division Bench of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the required woods and planks from the head office at Ollur, the materials are assembled in the petitioner's factory at Pallavaram and delivered to the buyers. On these facts and in the light of the principle stated in the English Electric Company's case(1) [the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in that case; but the decision has since been affirmed by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decision is reported in [1976] 38 S.T.C. 475 (S.C.)], held that there was no warrant for the petitioner's contention that what took place was only a branch transfer of the materials from Kerala to Madras. The Tribunal was satisfied that the goods moved in pursuance of the contract of sale of the goods placed by the customers wit .....

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