PACKWELL PACKING CASES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE tax revision cases raise the question as to the nature of the transactions in respect of which sales tax was sought to be assessed on the petitioner under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner claimed that the transaction were not inter -State sales and were, therefore, not liable to be assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act, but only under the State law. The petitioner is not a registered dealer, and from the economic point of view, in the circumstances, it is more beneficial to him to be assessed under the State law rather than under the Central Sales Tax Act.

(2.) THE nature of the transaction and the facts and the circumstances and the course of dealings have been set out by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of its judgment. Briefly stated, the position disclosed is that the petitioner manufactures packing cases at Puducad, Trichur District. The materials for such manufacture are swan into sizable units and cut into shapes in their factory at Ollur. They are then consigned to the petitioner's branch office at Madras. The said office canvasses, and on receipt of 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 ([1969] 23 S.T.C. 32) [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 with the Kerala branch of the petitioner's factory. This was sufficient in the opinion of the Tribunal to hold that the movement of the goods had been "occasioned" by the contract of sale and, therefore, the transaction in question was an inter -State sale assessable under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. We do not think that any error of law has been disclosed in the decision of the Tribunal which calls for interference in these revision petitions. T.R.C. No. 21 of 1975 relates to the assessment year 1966 -67; T.R.C. No. 23 of 1975 relates to the assessment year 1967 -68 and T.R.C. No. 20 of 1975 relates to the assessment year 1969 -70. Subject to this difference, the question arising is the same. We therefore dismiss all these revision cases, but make no order as to costs in any of these cases. Petitions dismissed.