(1.) By its order dated the 23rd September, 1965, the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Tribunal") referred to this court for its opinion under Section 25(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), the following two questions:
(2.) The assessee, a public limited company with its head office in the town of Muzaffarpur and engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling railway wagons, fabricated structures, machinery parts and other goods, claimed exemption for the assessment year 1958-59 in respect of a turnover of Rs. 3,74,013, mentioned in question No. (i), on the ground that the sales were in the course of inter-State sales and not intra-State sales. The said sum constituted of two items, namely, Rs. 3,53,623.85 from the sale of steel structures to the railway administration, Izatnagar, in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and Rs. 20,390 from the sale of machinery to sugar mills in the said State. When the matter came up for hearing on, 12th February, 1968, before R. L. Narasimham, C.J., (as he then was) and B. N. Jha, J., it was conceded by the learned counsel for the assessee that so far as the turnover of Rs. 20,390 was concerned, the claim that the sales were inter-State sales could not be sustained and the reference was pressed only in respect of Rs. 3,53,623.85. On hearing the parties, the learned Judges felt that the findings of fact on the record, as they were, were not sufficient to enable them to answer the question. They accordingly directed the Tribunal to state a supplementary case on the question as to whether, so far as the turnover of Rs. 3,53,623.85 was concerned, there was an obligation to move the goods from Muzaffarpur to Izatnagar arising out of the contract of sale or mutual understanding or agreement between the seller and buyer. The Tribunal submitted the supplementary statement and, thereafter, the matter was placed before us for hearing.
(3.) I propose to take up the first question No. (ii). The order dated 12th February, 1968, of this court calling for a supplementary statement gives an impression that the reference in respect of question No. (ii) was not pressed because it states that the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed the reference only in respect of Rs. 3,53,623.85. However, as it is not specifically stated that the reference was not pressed in respect of question No. (ii), we heard the learned counsel for the parties on that question as well.