ORDER S. RAJAN, MEMBER. - In this case the facts are as follows. Messrs. Ford Motor Company of India, Ltd., Bombay, place allotments of cars in favour of the applicant who is one of their distributors. The applicant has a branch at Akola and another at Jabalpur. Within the allotments placed at his disposal the applicant strikes bargains with others and sells the Ford cars to them thus securing some profit on each transaction. The Diwan of Nandgaon State wanted one Super Deluxe Fordor Sedan. In the allotment of May, 1947, the Ford Motor Company of India, Ltd. allotted 4 Ford V-8 Super Deluxe Fordor Sedans. On 15th May, 1947, the applicant asked the Ford Motor Company to send the car direct to Rajnandgaon by rail. The Ford Motor Company on 9th June, 1947, sent the car by rail to Rajnandgaon. However, in the invoice dated 4th June, 1947, the engine number is mentioned. Thus it appears that on 4th June, 1947, the car in question was ear-marked for being sent to the Diwan, Nandgaon State. From the invoice it appears that the applicant had to pay Rs. 7,882 for the car to the Ford Motor Company. The applicant has sold the car to the Diwan of Nandgaon State for Rs. 9,487. 2. Messrs. Anandji Hardas and Company, Ltd., wanted one Mercury 8' Town Sedan. The allotment of April, 1947, for this type of car was two. Shri Hansraj Anandji wanted to take delivery of the car at Bombay itself. Accordingly on 18th July, 1947, the applicant asked the Ford Motor Company to hand over the car to Shri Hansraj Anandji, the representative of Messrs. Anandji Hardas and Company. On 22nd July, 1947, the car was handed over to Shri Hansraj Anandji by the Ford Motor Company, Bombay. The applicant sold this car to Messrs. Anandji Hardas and Company for Rs. 11,147-13-0 only. For this car the applicant had to pay Rs. 9,252-6-0 only to the Ford Motor Company, Bombay. 3. The Telhara Transport Company purchased two "V-8 194" Wheelbase Special Bus Chassis from the Akola branch of the applicant. The applicant wanted to supply these two vehicles from the allotments which were previous to April, 1947. Shri G. S. Phadke, partner of Telhara Transport Company wanted to take delivery of these vehicles at Bombay. 3. The Telhara Transport Company purchased two "V-8 194" Wheelbase Special Bus Chassis from the Akola branch of the applicant. The applicant wanted to supply these two vehicles from the allotments which were previous to April, 1947. Shri G. S. Phadke, partner of Telhara Transport Company wanted to take delivery of these vehicles at Bombay. Accordingly on 31st July, 1947, the applicant wrote to the Ford Motor Company, Bombay, asking them to hand over the vehicles to Shri G. S. Phadke. The Ford Motor Company handed over the vehicles on 1st August, 1947, to Shri G. S. Phadke. In the invoice dated 31st July, 1947, the engine numbers are noted down. So it appears that on 31st July, 1947, these two vehicles were earmarked for being handed over to Shri G. S. Phadke. 4. Before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur Region, the applicant contended that these sales were made outside the province and that sales tax is not leviable on these transactions. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax did not accept this contention of the applicant and he assessed sales tax on these transactions also. The applicant went up in appeal to the Sales Tax Commissioner who agreed with the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. It is against this order of the Sales Tax Commissioner that the applicant has come up in revision. 5. This is a case in which the agreements of sale have taken place in this province, while the delivery of the goods has been made outside the province. According to clause (g) of Section 2 of the Sales Tax Act "sale" means any transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration, including a transfer of property in goods made in course of the execution of a contract, but does not include a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge. Unless there is transfer of property, there is no sale. Sales tax can be levied only on those sales which take place in this province except in those cases which may be governed by Explanation II in Section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act. Obviously these cases are not governed by Explanation II in Section 2(g) as the goods were never within this province before the transfer of property in them took place. Obviously these cases are not governed by Explanation II in Section 2(g) as the goods were never within this province before the transfer of property in them took place. So the point to be decided is whether in the case of the four vehicles mentioned above the sale took place within the province or whether it can be deemed to have taken place within the province. Sales Tax will be leviable only if the transfer of property in the case of four vehicles took place within the province or can be deemed to have taken place within the province. so we have to determine where the transfer of property took place in the case of these four vehicles. The Sales Tax Commissioner bases his argument on Section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act. He holds that these vehicles are specific goods in a deliverable state and he also seems to think that the transfer of property took place at the places where the contracts of sale took place. It should be noted in this connection that Section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act only fixes the point of time when the transfer of property takes place. Section 20 does not state that the place where the contract is made should be deemed to be the place where the transfer of property takes place. In a case where the goods are situated at a place different from that where the contract of sale takes place, it is somewhat unnatural to assume that the goods have been transported in space to the place where the contract is made. It is more natural to assume that the transfer of property in goods takes place at the place where the goods are actually situated. In any case unless there is a specific provision of law to that effect, it would not be correct to presume that the transfer of property takes place where the contract of sale is made. Thus even if it is held that the goods in question are specific goods, still the transfer of property should be deemed to have taken place at Bombay at the times when the contracts were made in this province. There are, however, strong reasons to show that these goods are not specific goods and this aspect of the case will be dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs. 6. There are, however, strong reasons to show that these goods are not specific goods and this aspect of the case will be dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs. 6. The words "specific goods" have been defined in Section 2(14) of the Sale of Goods Act as follows :- "'specific goods' means goods identified and agreed upon at the time a contract of sale is made." The word "identified" is most important. The word used is "identified" and not "identifiable". The word "identified" implies establishment of identity of the goods in question. Thus the buyer and the seller must both be quite clear about the identity of the goods in question and there should be no ambiguity whatsoever about it. In Harnarayan Ramchandra v. Radhakishan Narayandas ((1947) N.L.J. 429) in paragraph 9 it is written :- "If I have twenty chairs of the same kind and I offer to sell ten, the goods are unascertained till ten particular chairs be appropriated towards the contract." Later on in the same case the learned Judges observe :- "It is true that the plaintiff had not seen the goods in question but that is not the test and if the minds of the seller and buyer met upon the same identical object and the contract was in respect of it and no other, the goods are specific." 7. When a seller agrees to sell one of a number of vehicles which are identical in all respects, it cannot be said that specific goods have been sold, because we do not know with respect to which vehicle the property is transferred. The usual trade practice is that the Ford Motor Company, Bombay, makes allotments of vehicles to the Provincial Automobile Company Ltd., Nagpur, every month. This alone is not sufficient to make the goods "specific goods". In order that the goods contracted to be sold are specific goods, it is necessary that their identity is established. In this case, there is nothing to show that the identity of the vehicles was established when the contracts of sale were made in this province. So I am of opinion that the learned Sales Tax Commissioner is not correct when he calls the goods in question as "specific goods". So, in my opinion, Section 20 is not applicable to the present case and the transfer of property did not occur at the time when the contracts were made. So I am of opinion that the learned Sales Tax Commissioner is not correct when he calls the goods in question as "specific goods". So, in my opinion, Section 20 is not applicable to the present case and the transfer of property did not occur at the time when the contracts were made. 8. Thus these goods are unascertained goods. So in order to find out when and where the transfer of property took place, it will be necessary to apply the provisions of Section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act which deals with unascertained goods. At the time when one of these vehicles was sent by rail to Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon was outside this province, but even if it had been within this province at that time, it would not alter the position. From the invoice dated 4th June, 1947, which gives the engine number, it is clear that the vehicle which was sent to Rajnandgaon was appropriated on that day to the contract by the seller with the implied assent of the buyer. The car was sent to Rajnandgaon by rail only on 9th June, 1947, and on 4th June, 1947, the date of appropriation, the car was at Bombay. Thus according to Section 23(1) the transfer of property took place at Bombay on 4th June, 1947. By perusing the two other invoices dated 22nd July, 1947, and 31st July, 1947, in which the engine numbers are mentioned it is clear that on 22nd July, 1947, and on 31st July, 1947, the goods were appropriated to the contract by the seller with the implied assent of the buyer and so under Section 23(1) of the Sale of Goods Act the transfer of property of these three vehicles took place at Bombay on 22nd July, 1947, and on 31st July, 1947. Every transaction should be deemed to consist of two sales, namely, a sale by the Ford Motor Company to the applicant and a second sale by the applicant to the consumers. As the appropriations took place only at Bombay, it should be deemed that on the dates mentioned above, there was a transfer of property from the Ford Motor Company to the applicant and another transfer of property from the applicant to the consumer - both these transfers of property taking place at Bombay. As the appropriations took place only at Bombay, it should be deemed that on the dates mentioned above, there was a transfer of property from the Ford Motor Company to the applicant and another transfer of property from the applicant to the consumer - both these transfers of property taking place at Bombay. As the transfers of property took place at Bombay, it follows that the sales of the motor vehicles mentioned above also took place at Bombay. I have already said that Explanation II below Section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act does not apply to the present case. 9. As the sales were made outside this province, no sales tax can be levied on these sales. The order of the learned Sales Tax Commissioner is, therefore, set aside so far as it pertains to the sales of the four vehicles mentioned above. H. S. KAMATH, PRESIDENT. - I agree with the conclusions of my learned colleague. Ordered accordingly.