JUDGMENT This is a reference under section 23(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to decide the following questions of law :- "(1) Did the agreements of the kind on record, the one dated 18th October, 1940, and the other dated 2nd March, 1945, constitute contracts of sale either express or implied in respect of sawar wood supplied by the assessee to Wimco ? (2) If the answer to question No. (1) be in the affirmative, did the contracts relate to specific or ascertained goods or to unascertained or future goods ? (3) Did the property in the goods pass to Wimco by consignment simpliciter at different railway stations within this province, or did it pass at Ambernath when the goods were approved as provided in the contracts ? (4) Was reliance on the definition of 'goods' contained in section 2(7) of Sale of Goods Act in order in applying Explanation II to section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act in cases where the goods sold were in the form of trees standing on the land in this province at the time of the contract of sale ?" 2. The Board of Revenue refused to refer the vital question regarding the vires of Explanation II to section 2(g) of the Act in view of the decision of this Court in Shriram Gulabdas v. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 343; I.L.R. 1953 Nag. 332), and the assessee has not moved this Court to require the Board of Revenue to refer this question for decision. 3. The assessee disputes his assessment to sales tax on the sale of logs of sawar wood supplied by him during the period from 1st June, 1947, to 12th November, 1947, to the Western India Match Company, Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company) at Ambernath in the State of Bombay. These logs were supplied on terms similar to those of the written statement dated 2nd March, 1945, made at Bombay. The date of the agreement for supply during the relevant period is not on record. These logs were supplied on terms similar to those of the written statement dated 2nd March, 1945, made at Bombay. The date of the agreement for supply during the relevant period is not on record. After specifying the dimensions and the quantity of wood to be supplied, the agreement inter alia provides :- (1) that the logs shall be of straight growth and free from twisted or spiral growth, large or dead knots, cracks, shakes, decay, rings, or general over-maturity; (2) that the logs shall be green, sound, cylindrical, freshly cut, with barks on; (3) that the logs on arrival at Ambernath are liable to be rejected if they do not conform to the specifications, notwithstanding the fact that such logs may have been accepted by the company's representative before being railed to Ambernath; (4) the goods may be despatched by the assessee by rail from any one of the stations specified in the agreement which includes stations outside Madhya Pradesh; (5) that the rates agreed are f.o.r. Ambernath and the price is to be paid at Ambernath after the measurements of the goods are finally completed there. 4. The goods were in fact railed from railway stations in the Chanda district. It is not disputed that on several occasions the representative of the company was present when the goods were sorted out and railed. It is also not disputed that the assessee was not the owner of any sawar forest. It is not clear whether he was holding any lease of such forest on the date he made the agreement with the company under which the goods were supplied during the relevant period, or whether he was purchasing standing timber to fell and supply to the company or whether he was purchasing felled logs for the purpose. There is also no evidence that he was in possession of any sawar logs on the date of the agreement. Freshly cut logs with barks on were to be supplied under the agreement. Naturally, trees had to be felled subsequent to the date of the agreement, as and when required for despatch according to its terms; and the trees were undoubtedly growing. 5. The matter was heard by a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue consisting of the President and Shri Shrivastava. Naturally, trees had to be felled subsequent to the date of the agreement, as and when required for despatch according to its terms; and the trees were undoubtedly growing. 5. The matter was heard by a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue consisting of the President and Shri Shrivastava. Though both of them held that the supplies made by the assessee to the company were sales liable to sales tax, their grounds for the decision materially differed. According to the learned President, the contract was for sale of unascertained goods and in some cases of future goods and not of specific or ascertained goods. The goods were however in existence within the province on the date of the contract either in the form of logs in a deliverable state or in the form of trees standing in the forests in the State. On a true interpretation of the contract, the agreement was to sell either logs or standing trees which were to be severed before delivery; and consequently in either case Explanation II to section 2(g) of the Act was attracted. It was accepted by the learned President that the contract of sale was made with, and the property in the goods also passed to, the buyer outside the State. 6. According to Shri Shrivastava it was a contract of sale of specific and ascertained goods and the property in the logs passed to the purchaser as soon as they were delivered to the carrier at the rail heads within the province after sorting them out in the presence of the representative of the company. According to the learned Member "this leads to the inference that the implied contract of sale as evidenced by the conduct of the parties covered specific and ascertained goods. In other words, sawar wood and its consignment from this Province were each time covered or governed by the implied contract of sale." The learned Member was of the view that there was a presumption that the despatches were of ascertained goods in the absence of any evidence that large quantities of logs were rejected at Ambernath. It was also observed : "Clause 6 of the agreement regarding final measurements does not in any way affect the terms or conditions of each transaction which amounts to contract of sale between the parties". It was also observed : "Clause 6 of the agreement regarding final measurements does not in any way affect the terms or conditions of each transaction which amounts to contract of sale between the parties". According to the learned Member there was thus a contract of sale of ascertained goods each time the goods were railed, and this contract was an implied contract. With respect, we cannot accept this interpretation of the agreement in question. The representative, who under the agreement had provisionally to approve of the logs to be railed by the assessee, had no right to make any contract binding on the company, and in fact he did not make any such contract, implied or express. We therefore hold that there was no contract of sale each time the goods were railed. 7. Sales tax is levied on the sale of goods. "Sale" was defined in section 2(g) of the Act as it stood during the relevant period as follows :- "'Sale' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions 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. "Explanation (I). - A transfer of goods on hire-purchase or other instalment system of payment shall, notwithstanding that the seller retains a title to any goods as security for payment of the price, be deemed to be a sale; Explanation (II). - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the sale of any goods which are actually in the Central Provinces and Berar at the time when the contract of sale as defined in that Act in respect thereof is made, shall, wherever the said contract of sale is made, be deemed for the purpose of this Act to have taken place in the Central Provinces and Berar." It is conceded that Explanation 1 is not material for this case. The test for a "sale" is the transfer of property from the seller to the buyer. "Property" is not defined in the Act but it is defined in section 2(11) of the Sale of Goods Act to mean general property in goods and not merely a special property. General property is equivalent to ownership. The test for a "sale" is the transfer of property from the seller to the buyer. "Property" is not defined in the Act but it is defined in section 2(11) of the Sale of Goods Act to mean general property in goods and not merely a special property. General property is equivalent to ownership. Sections 18 to 25 of the Sale of Goods Act lay down the rules for the transfer of property as between the buyer and the seller. As regards a contract for the sale of unascertained goods the property in the goods not pass to the buyer unless and until the goods are ascertained (section 18). As regards a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods, the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. For the purpose of ascertaining such intention regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. Unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in sections 20 to 25 are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer. 8. We have therefore first to determine whether the contract of sale in the instant case related to specific or ascertained goods or unascertained or future goods. Section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act defines "future goods" and "specific goods". "Future goods" means goods to be manufactured or produced or acquired by the seller after the making of the contract of sale. "Specific goods" means goods, identified and agreed upon at the time a contract of sale is made. The Act necessarily distinguishes specific goods from unascertained goods, i.e., goods defined only by description. The term "specific goods" is not identical with "ascertained goods". As contrasted with "specific goods" the term "ascertained goods" may be intended to cover the case of goods which had become ascertained subsequent to the formation of the contract : In re Wait ([1927] 1 Ch. 606 at p. 630). 9. The term "specific goods" is not identical with "ascertained goods". As contrasted with "specific goods" the term "ascertained goods" may be intended to cover the case of goods which had become ascertained subsequent to the formation of the contract : In re Wait ([1927] 1 Ch. 606 at p. 630). 9. In Kursell v. Timber Operators and Contractor Ltd. ([1927] 1 K.B. 298) it was held that "the definition of specific goods will not fit trees of which it cannot be determined that they are merchantable and within the contract until the time for felling them has approached and when the time for their measurement has arrived." The definition of "specific goods" in the English Act is the same as in the Indian Sale of Goods Act. The facts of the case were. The appellant made a contract to sell timber to be cut within 15 years. Trees less than a particular girth were not to be cut. The price was to be paid by an initial payment and further 15 yearly instalments. The purchasers were placed in possession of the forest and had cut trees for timber. When the whole forest was confiscated by the State, in a suit to recover the whole price on the ground that the property in the goods passed to the buyer, it was held that on a true interpretation of the agreement the property was intended to be passed at the time of cutting the trees. 10. Under clause 4 of the agreement in question the area from which sawar logs could be supplied was very vast and undefined. It is not found that the seller was the owner of this area or had any interest in sawar trees therein at the date of the contract. The contract does not provide for supply of any specific logs lying at any specific place. It was to supply logs from this vast area answering the description given in the contract. The seller had the right to supply logs answering this description from anywhere with in this area. On the date of the contract, therefore, the sawar logs were not identified and the contract of sale was not of specific or ascertained goods. It was a contract for the sale of unascertained or future goods. The seller could acquire the logs at any time before tendering for delivery. On the date of the contract, therefore, the sawar logs were not identified and the contract of sale was not of specific or ascertained goods. It was a contract for the sale of unascertained or future goods. The seller could acquire the logs at any time before tendering for delivery. In our view, therefore, the agreement related to the sale of sawar logs which were unascertained or future goods on the date of the contract. Questions 1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 11. The next question for consideration is when and where has the property in goods passed to the buyer company. Under section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act, where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained or future goods by description and the goods of that description and in a deliverable state are unconditionally appropriated to the contract, either by the seller with the assent of the buyer or by the buyer with the assent of the seller, the property in the goods thereupon passes to the buyer. Such assent may be express or implied and may be given either before or after the appropriation is made. After sorting the logs with the assent of the buyer's representative, the applicant appropriated the logs to the contract by railing them to the buyer's destination at Ambernath. The statement of the case is silent on the point whether the railway receipts were made out with the company as the consignee. The assent of the representative was provisional and was not binding on the company. Under the agreement it did not agree to unconditionally appropriate the logs to the contract as soon as they were delivered to the railway with the assent of its representative for carriage to Ambernath. It had expressly reserved its right to reject the goods one examination at Ambernath. The agreement therefore was that the buyer should with the assent of the seller, appropriate the goods to the contract at Ambernath. The appropriation under section 23 was not complete till the goods reached Ambernath and were appropriated by the company to the contract. The appropriation of the goods by the applicant at the rail heads was conditional on their acceptance by the buyer at Ambernath. There is nothing in the statement of the case to show that the logs were not so appropriated. The appropriation of the goods by the applicant at the rail heads was conditional on their acceptance by the buyer at Ambernath. There is nothing in the statement of the case to show that the logs were not so appropriated. Therefore, the property in the logs passed to the buyer at Ambernath. 12. Section 24 of the Sale of Goods Act on which the learned President relied is inapplicable. The logs were not delivered by the applicant to the company on approval or "on sale or return" or other similar terms. As already pointed out, there is no evidence that the goods were delivered to the buyer at the rail head. Even under section 24 the property passes to the buyer when he signifies his approval or acceptance to the seller, or does any other act adopting the transaction. Such act took place at Ambernath and not at the rail head. 13. Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act defines "sale" and an "agreement to sell". It runs thus :- "4. (1) A contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a price. There may be a contract of sale between one part-owners and another. (2) A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. (3) Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is called a sale, but where the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition thereafter to be fulfilled, the contract is called an agreement to sell. (4) An agreement to sell becomes a sale when the time elapses or the conditions are fulfilled subject to which the property in the goods is to be transferred." It is manifest that the agreement in question under which sawar logs were supplied to the company during the relevant period was an agreement to sell as defined in this section. That agreement became a sale when the property in the goods passed to the company at Ambernath. Since the agreement was to supply logs in lots, the agreement to sell in respect of each lot became sale when the property in the lot passed to the buyer. That agreement became a sale when the property in the goods passed to the company at Ambernath. Since the agreement was to supply logs in lots, the agreement to sell in respect of each lot became sale when the property in the lot passed to the buyer. Therefore, the sales took place at Ambernath each time the goods were appropriated by the buyer to the contract. Point No. 3 is answered accordingly. 14. It is evident from the long title and preamble of the Act that the object of the Act is to levy a tax on the sale of goods in Madhya Pradesh. The question for consideration therefore is what element or elements have been accepted by the Act as constituting a sale within this State. In the main definition of sale in section 2(g) of the Act stress is laid on the element of transfer of property in goods and the payment or promise of payment of price or other valuable consideration and on no other. If that was the whole definition of sale, it is manifest that the sales in the instant case, having taken place outside the State, are not liable to tax under the Act : Poppatlal Shah v. The State of Madras ([1953] 4 S.T.C. 188 (S.C.)). 15. The course of business in Poppatlal's case ([1953] 4 S.T.C. 188 (S.C.)) which was actually followed during the period for which assessment was sought to be made was as follows :- The assessee firm received orders in its Madras head office from Calcutta merchants for supply of articles. These articles were purchased in the local markets and were despatched to Calcutta by rail or steamer. The railway receipts, bills of lading and insurance policies were taken in the name of the firm and sent to the firm's bankers in Calcutta to deliver the same to the consignee on payment of the prices and other charges. On these facts their Lordships held that the sales had taken place outside the province and were not liable to tax, having regard to the definition of "sale". This definition was identical in terms with definition of "sale" in this Act minus the Explanations. At page 193 their Lordships observed :- "The expression 'sale of goods' is a composite expression consisting of various ingredients or elements. This definition was identical in terms with definition of "sale" in this Act minus the Explanations. At page 193 their Lordships observed :- "The expression 'sale of goods' is a composite expression consisting of various ingredients or elements. Thus, there are the elements of a bargain or contract of sale, the payment or promise of payment of price, the delivery of goods and the actual passing of title, and each one of them is essential to a transaction of sale though the sale is not completed or concluded unless the purchaser becomes the owner of the property." At page 192 their Lordships observed :- "It admits of no dispute that a Provincial Legislature could not pass a taxation statute which would be binding on any other part of India outside the limits of the Province, but it would be quite competent to enact a legislation imposing taxes on transactions concluded outside the Province, provided that there was sufficient and a real territorial nexus between such transactions and the taxing Province." 16. The next question for consideration is whether there is a necessary nexus between the transactions and the taxing State. Such nexus, if at all, must, in the instant case, be found in Explanation II to section 2(g) of the Act. That explanation introduces a fiction by which transactions which are not sales in this State under the main definition are deemed to be such sales if the goods are actually in this State at the time when the contract of sale as defined in the Indian Sale of Goods Act in respect thereof is made. It does not matter where the said contract of sale is made. Under the Sale of Goods Act a contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer property in the goods to the buyer for a price. It will be noticed that the definitions of "goods" in the Act and the Indian Sale of Goods Act are materially different. The one in the latter Act is much wider than that in the former. under the former Act "'goods' means all kinds of movable property other than actionable claims, stocks, shares or securities and includes all materials, articles and commodities, whether or not to be used in the construction, fitting out, improvement or repair of immovable property". The one in the latter Act is much wider than that in the former. under the former Act "'goods' means all kinds of movable property other than actionable claims, stocks, shares or securities and includes all materials, articles and commodities, whether or not to be used in the construction, fitting out, improvement or repair of immovable property". Under the Sale of Goods Act "'goods' means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money and includes stocks and shares, growing crops, grass and things attached to and forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale." "Movable property" is not defined by either Act. It is defined in the Central Provinces and Berar General Clauses Act, 1914 (1 of 1914) to mean "property of every description except immovable property", and "immovable property" is defined by that Act to include "land, benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth." This definition includes standing timber, growing crops and grass. These are, however, excluded from the definition of "immovable property" under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Thus standing timber is not goods under the Sales Tax Act or under the Sale of Goods Act; but it would be goods under the latter Act if there is an agreement to sever the trees before sale or under the agreement of sale. 17. It is clear that in determining the taxability of the sale of goods under the Sales Tax Act, the definition of "goods" in that Act must govern the case and not the definition in the Sale of Goods Act. The interpretation clause in a statute is a little dictionary of its own in which it endeavours to define, often arbitrarily, the chief terms used. Unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the words used in an Act must be interpreted according to the definitions in that Act. It is manifest that sawar trees which are immovable property as defined in the General Clauses Act are included in the definition of "goods" in the Sale of Goods Act if they are agreed to be severed from the earth before the sale or under the contract of sale, but they are not so included in the definition under the Sales Tax Act. If the definition in the Sale of Goods Act were to be read as the definition of "goods" in the Act, sale of stocks and shares which are excluded by the definition in the Act, will be liable to sales tax. Similarly, sale of standing timber, growing crops, grass, etc., which are not movables under the General Clauses Act and which are not included in the definition in the Act, will be liable to tax. Materials, articles and commodities, to be used in the construction, fitting out, improvement or repair of immovable property which are not goods under the Sale of Goods Act will be exempt from tax. By thin interpretation the definition of "goods" in the Act becomes otiose. The definition of "goods" in the Sale of Goods Act cannot therefore be used in interpreting Explanation II to section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act. Under the contract in question the sawar trees are not identified and the contract cannot be for the sale of sawar trees even under the Sale of Goods Act. We therefore answer question No. 4 in the negative. 18. In our view, therefore, the sales in question are not sales under the Sales Tax Act and are not liable to tax. 19. Our answers to the questions referred for decision are :- (1) The agreement in question was an express agreement to sell sawar logs to Wimco. There was neither an express nor an implied contract each time goods were railed. (2) The contract was not for delivery of specific goods but of unascertained or future goods by description. (3) The property in the goods did not pass to the buyer by the delivery to the railway for carriage. It passed at Ambernath where the goods were appropriated by the buyer to the contract with the assent of the seller. (4) The word "goods" in the definition of "sale" in the Sales Tax Act must be interpreted according to its definition in section 2(d) of the Act and not according to the definition in section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act. The standing sawar trees are not goods within the meaning of the former Act. 20. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Board of Revenue as required by section 23(5) of the Act. Since the applicant has succeeded, he will have the costs of this reference from the non-applicant. The standing sawar trees are not goods within the meaning of the former Act. 20. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Board of Revenue as required by section 23(5) of the Act. Since the applicant has succeeded, he will have the costs of this reference from the non-applicant. Counsel's fee Rs. 200. Reference answered accordingly.