ORDER G.L. Oza, C.J.-l. This petition and Misc. Petition No. 1108 of 1983 raise common questions and therefore are being disposed of by the common order. 2. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is a Federation of 54 associations of timber merchants of the State of Maharashtra and petitioner No.2 is a member of the Nagpur Timber Merchants Association which is also a member of the petitioner No. 1. It is alleged that this Federation has been formed to deal with the problems of common interest and the work of redress of grievances common to all. It is also alleged that this Federation is authorised to take appropriate steps for ventilating the grievances of timber merchants in the Maharashtra State and to protect their interests and it is thus claimed by petitioner No.1 that this present petition has been filed by the petitioner on behalf of 54 associations of the timber merchants of Maharashtra State. 3. Petitioner No.2, it is alleged, is a partnership duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and it carries on timber business in Nagpur. There are two partners of this partnership and both are citizens of India. 4. It is alleged that these timber merchants in Maharashtra deal with timber of all kinds including teak and it is alleged that most of these merchants purchase teak logs from the Forest Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Before 1-11-1956, according to the petitioners, the districts of Seoni, Balaghat, Chhindwara, Betul, Hoshangabad, Durg, Jabalpur, Sagar and Mandla ware parts of old Central Province and the timber merchants from Nagpur and 8 districts of Vidarbha were also purchasing timber from, these districts which were then the parts of old Central Province. Even after the formation of Madhya Pradesh it is alleged that these merchants have been purchasing timber from the Forest Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh in various districts including Seoni, Chhindwara, Betul, Balaghat and Durg. It is also alleged that these petitioners and the timber merchants of Maharashtra have no establishments in Madhya Pradesh. They have also no shops or places of their own in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 5. It is alleged by the petitioners that the Madhya Pradesh Legislature enacted the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) and under that Adhiniyam specified forest produce has been defined. They have also no shops or places of their own in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 5. It is alleged by the petitioners that the Madhya Pradesh Legislature enacted the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) and under that Adhiniyam specified forest produce has been defined. It includes different species of timber as mentioned in section 2 of the Adhiniyam. The Adhiniyam is also applicable to forest produce, teak and other varieties of timber in the area comprising of Seoni district. Under the Adhiniyam the State monopoly, has been created in the trade of timber. Under section 5 of the Adhiniyam on issue of notification under section 3 (1) no person other than the State Government or its officer or an agents can purchase or transfer any specified forest produce in the areas where the Adhiniyam has been made applicable. The Forest Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh holds auctions periodically by disposal of timber of various kinds in the forest depots in the State• The Divisional Forest Officer who conducts the auction sends information about such auctions to the timber merchants of the State of Maharashtra including petitioner No.2. The dates of auctions and the forest lots to be auctioned are also advertised in newspapers. 6. According to the petitioners, the members of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 participate in such auctions in various forest depots in Madhya Pradesh and it is alleged that in accordance with the procedure which is followed by the forest officers at the time of auction a prospective bidder is required to fill in a form giving his name, address and the amount of earnest money which he proposes to deposit. After such form is filled in, a prospective bidder is also required to deposit the amount towards earnest money and he gets a receipt for that amount. In that receipt also the name and address of the prospective bidders and also the amount are mentioned. The members of the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No.2 when they go to purchase forest timber in the State of M. P. they follow tl1e same procedure. They mention their names, addresses and the amount in the form, and thereafter they get receipts in their names and addresses from the auctioning authority. The auctions are held at the depots where lots are arranged. They mention their names, addresses and the amount in the form, and thereafter they get receipts in their names and addresses from the auctioning authority. The auctions are held at the depots where lots are arranged. The members of the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 bid at these auctions and disclose their identity as timber merchants from the State of Maharashtra. The auctioning authority also writes down in the bid-sheet the name of the bidder, addresses which discloses that the bidder is a resident of the Maharashtra State. It is alleged that if the bid of the petitioner's merchant from Maharashtra is accepted, his signature is also taken on the bid-sheet. On the bid-sheet itself it is written that the timber merchant from Maharashtra has-been the successful bidder and the lot is knocked down in his favour The name of the purchaser from Maharashtra is also written on the lot to identify the lot. It is also alleged that a memo is issued showing the timber merchant from Maharashtra being the successful bidder on the spot and after the memo is given to the purchaser, he is required to deposit 1/4 the of the bid money and the deposit is also made showing that the purchaser is from Maharashtra. 7. After such purchase of timber the bidder goes to his place and the Divisional Forest Officer despatches the work-order mentioning the amount of M.P. Sales Tax Act, Forest Development Cess and the amount of price of lot number. The work-orders are sent lotwise directing the purchaser to make payment within 45 days and take delivery of goods. 8. It is alleged that after the receipt of each work-order the timber merchant from Maharashtra or Gujarat, as the: case may be, sends the amounts towards the balance of the price, M.P. Sales Tax, Forest Developments Cess or other amounts by bank draft of a bank in their State (Maharashtra). That bank draft is sent to the Divisional Forest Officer who encashes it and thereafter the purchaser sends trucks for taking delivery of the timber. It is alleged that the trucks are sent to the places where the lots are arranged and the delivery is given to the truck driver. That bank draft is sent to the Divisional Forest Officer who encashes it and thereafter the purchaser sends trucks for taking delivery of the timber. It is alleged that the trucks are sent to the places where the lots are arranged and the delivery is given to the truck driver. The truck driver also collects transit passes, sale certificates which show that the purchaser is from the State of Maharashtra and on the basis of these documents the timber is transported from the forest depots to their respective places in the states of Maharashtra or Gujarat, as the case may be. It is alleged that when the trucks reached the border place, the transit passes issued by the Forest Officer are collected by the Forest Check Post Officer and he issues other transit passes permitting the transport of forest produce in the respective State of Maharashtra or Gujarat. 9. According to the petitioners, these purchasers who are timber merchants from the State of Maharashtra or Gujarat, offer their bids at such auctions. The bids of Madhya Pradesh merchants also are offered. The timber merchants are required to pay sales-tax at a lesser rate of 3.5% whereas timber merchants from Maharashtra or Gujarat or other out side States including petitioners 1 & 2 are required to pay sales-tax at the rate of 16 % and proportionate forest development cess. After payment of such tax the members of petitioners 1 & 2 are required to pay more price of similar lots. It is alleged that the timber merchants from Madhya Pradesh and the timber merchants from Maharashtra process such lots in saw mills and thereafter they sell timber of different sizes more or less in the same market. The processed timber logs or cut pieces which are manufactured by the timber merchants of Maharashtra are required to, be sold at the same price at which the timber merchants from Madhya Pradesh sell it, and in effect the petitioners are required to pay more sales-tax and sell it at the same price as done by the timber merchants of Madhya Pradesh. 10. It is al1eged that the petitioners several times offered to make the purchase on 'C' Form after paying sales tax at a concessional rate. They submitted that the sales are inter-state sales and only 4 % sales-tax is payable. 10. It is al1eged that the petitioners several times offered to make the purchase on 'C' Form after paying sales tax at a concessional rate. They submitted that the sales are inter-state sales and only 4 % sales-tax is payable. It is al1eged that the Divisional Forest Officer, however, refused to accept 'C' Form and has been collecting sales-tax at the rate of 16 % from the petitioners. 11. It is alleged that petitioner No.2 in accordance with the procedure described above purchased two lots of timber logs at Dhooma depot of Seoni North. Forest Division on 29th and 30th July 1983. The petitioner No.2 filled in a form giving his name address and the amount of earnest money to entitle him to bid at the auction which was conducted at Dhooma by the Divisional Forest Officer, Seoni. He deposited the earnest money of Rs.14, 400/- on 29-7-1983, a copy of which is filed as Document No.1. It is alleged that this receipt shows the name of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.2 offered the bid at the auction. He was the successful bidder of lot No. 1574 and 1577. His bid for Rs, 37,500/- and Rs. 19,900/- was accepted. That bid was also written in the bid sheet and his signatures were taken. Thereafter the sale acceptance order dated 19-8-1983 was sent to him at his address at Nagpur mentioning as him the purchaser from Nagpur. The sale acceptance order or sanction order dated 19-8-1983 (Document No.2) menfons the lot number the sale price the earnest money, the forest development cess, sales-tax and the provincial sales-tax. It is alleged that thereafter the Depot Officer also issued sale certificates and work-order dated 12-9-1983 (Document No.3). That was also issued in the name of petitioner No 2 with his address at Nagpur. It is alleged that this work-order shows that the petitioner No.2 has been made to pay sales-tax at the rate of 16 %. The work-order or the sale certificate refers to both the lots. 12. It is alleged that petitioner No.2 had sent his truck No. MHB 1927 for taking delivery of the purchased lots. The forest authorities had issued transit passes to enable the petitioner No.2 to transport these goods out sic e the State of Madhya Pradesh. The work-order or the sale certificate refers to both the lots. 12. It is alleged that petitioner No.2 had sent his truck No. MHB 1927 for taking delivery of the purchased lots. The forest authorities had issued transit passes to enable the petitioner No.2 to transport these goods out sic e the State of Madhya Pradesh. These transit passes were surrendered at Man gaon after Khawasa and the Forest Check Post Officer of Maharashtra gave another transit pass to the petitioner No.2 a copy of which is filed as Document No.4. The above two purchase., made by petitioner No.2, according to the petitioners, show that he was a purchaser from Nagpur. He had also deposited earnest money as a purchaser. He had offered his bid and his bid was accepted and in all the documents his address was shown to be of Nagpur. He had also sent the price from Nagpur and the vehicles which took delivery and transported the goods to Nagpur. It is alleged that the entire transaction shows that the movement of goods of the forest produce and timber from the State of Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra was occasioned because of the transaction and it is contended that such a transaction shall be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce and it is on this basis, it Was contended, that the sales-tax could only be charged as chargeable on inter-state sale and not at the rate at which sale in Madhya Pradesh is chargeable. 13. It is alleged that the petitioners made several representations to the sales-tax authorities and also to the forest authorities requesting them to treat these sales to be inter-state sales and allow the petitioner to furnish 'C' Forms and pay central sales-tax but the sales-tax authorities in the State of Madhya Pradesh did not accept the representations. Copies of these representations have been filed as Document No.5. It is on this round, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners. that the tax could only be levied in accordance with Central Sales Tax Act as these sales were in the nature of inter-state sales and not sales within the State which are taxable under the M.P. Sales Tax Act. It is on this round, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners. that the tax could only be levied in accordance with Central Sales Tax Act as these sales were in the nature of inter-state sales and not sales within the State which are taxable under the M.P. Sales Tax Act. It is also alleged in the petition that if these goods are purchased by the local dealers, they are entitled to pay sales-tax at the rate of 3 % whereas the timber merchants of other States like Maharashtra and Gujarat are charged sales-tax at the rate of 16 % although these dealers, like the dealers of Madhya Pradesh, make payment of cess and sell the timber in the same market and on this basis it is contended that this was discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further contended that as the representations did not yield any result, the petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the levy of sales tax on the basis of M. P. General Sales Tax Act, i.e. 16 % on these goods. 14. At the time of hearing it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 and the M.P. Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 1961 prescribe the procedure to be followed in such case. Section 2 (d) defines 'forest produce'. Rule 5 talks of transit passes Rule 8 refers to the printed forms of transit passes. Rule 9 provides for the return of transit passes and Rules 10 talks of transit passes issued by private persons. By reference to these rules it was contended that the procedure as has been stated in the petitions is followed in the case of auction sale of lots of various produce i. e. timber and the purchasers (timber merchants) from out side Madhya Pradesh also are permitted to take part and they take part and the various stages at which the documents are prepared their names and addresses showing them to be of out side Madhya Pradesh is clearly stated and on this basis it was contended that the circumstances enumerated below are circumstances on consideration of which it will appear that the sale is in the nature of inter-state sale. The circumstances mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioners are; 1. The circumstances mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioners are; 1. Intimation sent by forest authorities in M.P. to the traders outside the State about auctions of forest produce in depots of Madhya Pradesh. 2. The purchasers from out side the State. Their addresses outside the state on the followings documents,(a) Deposits of earnest money and receipts thereof given by Forest Authorities as a pre-requisite for bidding. (b) At the time of bidding & auction and on the bid-sheets. (c) Bid money deposits. (d) payment of balance of 75 % amount from a place outside the State. (e) Receipts of amount sent by Forest Officers. (f) Transit permits in prescribed forms. (g) Goods delivered from transportation out side the State. (h) Acceptance of bids. (i) Payment of part of the price and receipts acknowledging the same. (j) Sale certificates issued under the prescribed forms. (k) No place of business in the State. It was contended that the interstate sale has been defined in section 3 of the Central Sale Tax Act, 1956 and clause (a) of this section refers to the movement of goods from one State to another and it is contended that it is in the nature of these transactions that it occasions the movement of goods from the State of Madhya Pradesh to the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat and therefore these sales will fall within the ambit of inter-state sales as provided for in section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and thus the levy of sales-tax at the rate of 16 % on the basis of M.P. Sales Tax Act could not be charged on these transactions of sale. Learned counsel in support of his contentions placed reliance on series of decisions where this definition of inter-state sale as provided in section 3 has been considered: The State Trading Corporation of India v. The State of Mysore14 STC 188, Oil India Ltd. v. The Suprintendent of Taxes 35 STC 445, English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 38 STC 475, Union of India v. K. G. Khosla and Co. Ltd. 43 STC 457, State of M.P. v. The Bengal Paper Mills Company Ltd. 44 STC 347, South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 48 STC 232 and The State of Gujarat v Bombay Metal Alloys & Mag. Co. Ltd. 43 STC 457, State of M.P. v. The Bengal Paper Mills Company Ltd. 44 STC 347, South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 48 STC 232 and The State of Gujarat v Bombay Metal Alloys & Mag. Co. Pvt. Ltd. 54 STC 45, Learned counsel contended that in fact Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., v. S.R. Sarkar 11 STC 655 is the judgment which considered the implications of this definition and in all the subsequent decisions the matter has been considered in the light of clause (a) of section 3. Learned counsel also referred to the decisions in Union of India v. K.G. Khosla and Co. Ltd., 43 STC 457. South India Viscose Ltd., v. State of Timil Nadu 48 STC 232, Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. C.P. Manganese Ore Co. 54 STC 145 and C.P. Manganese Ore Co. Ltd., v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. 54 STC 147. 15. Learned Government Advocate for the State, on the other hard, contended that section 5 of the M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 read with Rules 5 and 9 of the M.P. Transit (Forest Produce Rules, 1961 clearly go to show that these sales are sales which could not be said to be inter-state sales but are sales in the State of Madhya Pradesh only and it was contended that in fact as the sale is conducted in the State itself as is clear from the definition of 'sale' as provided in section 2 (g) under the Central Sales Tax Act and section 2 (n) under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, the sale is complete within the State as the property only passes to the seller on the bid being accepted. It was contended that the definition of 'sale' in these laws is not different from that which is provided in the Sales of Goods Act. It was, therefore contended by the learned Government Advocate that the sale is complete as provided in section 4 (3) of the Sales of Goods Act and also as defined in section 2 (g) of the Central Sales Tax Act and 2 (n) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, in the State of Madhya Pradesh itself and, therefore, the question of tax being levied on the basis of inter-state sale cannot be accepted. Learned Government Advocate also referred to sections 18 and 19 the Sale of Goods Act to contend that where there is a contract of sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in the goods passes at the time the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred and in the light of the transactions as described by the petitioners when the bids are accepted and sale certificate is issued and the sale price is paid, the sale is complete and the property in goods is transferred to the purchaser as it is not disputed that it is the purchaser's truck which takes delivery from the depots in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was contended that issue of transit pass is only affording a permission to the purchaser to carry the goods as the forest produce are goods which can only be carried under a permit and. therefore, the issuance of the transit pass cannot be used to contend that the contract of sale itself occasioned the movement of goods from the State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Maharashtra or Gujarat. Learned Government Advocate referred to the decisions reported in South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 48 STC 232, Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. The State of Haryana 3 STC 629, Markar (Motors) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer 19 STC 18 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India 47 STC 1. He also referred to Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board Bangalore 46 STC 164, Oil India Ltd. v. The Superintendent of Taxes 33 STC 445 and Arcot Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu 55 STC 356 and contended that in the nature of these transactions the contention cannot be accepted that these sales were such where the movement of goods was occasioned because of the contract of sale. 16. The main controversy centres round the language of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 3 reads: "3. A Sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase- (a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another; or (b) is effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another. Explanation 1. A Sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase- (a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another; or (b) is effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another. Explanation 1. Where goods are delivered to a carrier or other bailee for transmission, the movement of the goods shall, for the purposes of clause (b), be deemed to commence at the time of such delivery and terminate at the time when delivery is taken from such carrier of bailee. Explanation 2. Where the movement of goods commences and terminates in the same state it shall not be deemed to be a movement of goods from one State to another by reason merely of the fact that in the course of such movement the goods pass through the territory of any other State." It is not disputed that the only clause which if at all is attracted is clause (a). This clause clearly reads that "if the sale or purchase occasions the movement of goods from one State to another." It is, therefore, clear that if the sale in favour of the petitioner or, in other words, the purchase made by the petitioner occasions the movement of goods from one State to another, then it will fall within the ambit of definition of inter state trade or commerce as provided' in section 3. The term 'sale' has been defined in the Central Sales Tax Act in section 2 (g) which reads: "(f) 'sale', with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means any transfer of property in goods by one person to another for cash or for deferred payment or for any other valuation considerations and includes a transfer of goods on the hire-purchase or other system of payment by installments, but does not include a mortgage or hypothecation of or a charge or pledge on goods." This definition clearly provides that sale means any transfer of property in goods by one person to another for cash or for deferred payment or for other valuable consideration and it ii this definition of sale which will have to be considered in order to understand the meaning of sale in the course of interstate trade as provided in section 3. It is, therefore, plain that sale within the meaning of this definition in section 2 (g) means transfer of property in goods by one person to another and in the present case, therefore, we will have to consider whether the transfer of property in goods takes place from the M.P. State to the petitioner purchaser in view of the procedure of sale by auction as provided for under the rules and the provisions of the Act as the procedure is not in dispute. It is not disputed that for auction advertisement is given and traders from the State or outside are all invited to bid at the time of auction. It is also not disputed that the procedure is that the form with earnest money has to be filled in and if the bid is accepted signatures of the highest bidder is taken on the bid list and it is also not disputed that when a certificate is issued showing the price and thereafter the price is paid and the delivery of goods is taken. It is also not in dispute that what is sold is not unascertained goods but are ascertained goods as the separate lots are numbered and auctions are held lotwise and for each not bids are invited and when the highest bid is accepted a memorandum is prepared, the signature of the highest bidder is taken and a certificate is issued. In view of this procedure which is not in dispute it is clear as it appears that the sale is complete when the bid is accepted and a certificate is issued. As it is clear that the property in goods passes as soon as the bid of the purchaser is accepted and his signatures are taken and this is what is the definition of sale provided it section 2 (g) of the Central Sales Tax Act. To this extent there appears to be not much dispute. What is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners is that as from the very beginning when the form is filled in by the petitioner or an outside trader he gives his address and when even the bid is accepted his signatures are taken and his address is mentioned on the certificate. What is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners is that as from the very beginning when the form is filled in by the petitioner or an outside trader he gives his address and when even the bid is accepted his signatures are taken and his address is mentioned on the certificate. The balance of the amount also is sent by bank draft but it is not disputed that the bank draft although is sent by the petitioner or a dealer from outside but it is sent to the place in Madhya Pradesh where the auction takes place and the bank draft is encashed there but apart from it so far as the sale is concerned it is complete when the bid is accepted and a certificate is issued. It is also not disputed that even the delivery is given at the depot at the spot itself and it is, therefore, clear that so far as sale as difined in section 2 (g) is concerned it takes place within the State of Madhya Pradesh. The real controversy, therefore, only is as to whether this sale could be said to be in the course of inter-state trade and for that purpose clause (a) of section 3 becomes material and in order to understand the implication of clause (a) it is very significant to note the last words of section 3 "if the sale or purchase (a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another." A plain reading of this language clearly goes to show that if the sale or purchase occasions the movement of goods then alone it could be said that this falls within the ambit of inter-state trade or commerce. It is, therefore. clear that the sale or purchase should occasion the movement of goods i.e. the movement of goods should be a part of the transaction of sale or purchase and so long as it is not established that the movement of goods from the State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Maharashtra or Gujarat takes place because of the sale or purchase or as a part of the contract of sale or purchase it is not possible to hold that this movement of goods was occasioned because of the sale or purchase. 17. 17. The counsel for the petitioners was asked as to whether there is any restriction on the petitioners not to dispose of the goods in the State of Madhya Pradesh itself and the counsel could not say that it was not possible except that his contention was that as the petitioner is a dealer in Maharashtra, he only carries on his business in that State and not in the State of Madhya Pradesh, but from the nature of transaction as it has been stated in detail above it is clear that the sale is complete in the State of Madhya Pradesh itself and there is no question of movement of these goods from the State of Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra as a result of the transaction of sale or purchase. In fact, the movement is because the petitioner wants to utilise these goods in Maharashtra or Gujarat and not in Madhya Pradesh and the movement could not be attributed to any condition of the contract of sale. In Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited, Bombay v. S.R. Sarkar 11 STC 655 their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the language of section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and observed: "We take clause (a) of section 3 first. That clause contemplates a sale which occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. The words 'sale occasions the movement' should create no difficulty. It is apparent from the Explanation in section 2 (a) which will be set out later, that they mean 'moved by reason of the sale'. The question then arises, when does a sale occasion the movement of goods sold? It seems clear to us that a sale can occasion the movement of the goods sold only when the terms of the sale provide that the goods would be moved; in other words, a sale occasions a movement of goods when the contract of sale so provides." It, therefore, clearly lays down that when the goods are moved in accordance with the terms of the contract and the contract itself so provides, then clause (a) alone is attracted. This decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court has been followed in this Court in a series of decisions. This decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court has been followed in this Court in a series of decisions. In the State of Madhya Pradesh v. The Bengal Paper Mills Company Ltd. 44 STC 347, on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioners the question of section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act was considered and observations from the judgment of Hon'ble Shah J., as he then was, from 11 S. T. C. 655 (supra) were quoted with approval: "in which the movement of goods from one State to another is a result of a covenant or incident of the contract of sale, and property in the goods passes in either State." It is, therefore, clear that to attract the provisions of clause (a) of section 3 it is necessary to find out as to whether the movement of goods from one State to another causes result of a covenant or incident of the contract of sale. In 44 S.T.C. 347 (supra) a Division Bench of this Court while considering the question of sale of bamboos to the Bengal Paper Mills Company Ltd. held that it amounted to inter-state sale on a specific finding that there was a specific term in the contract that the purchaser shall use the bamboos for manufacture of paper at the respondent's paper mills situated in Raniganj, district Burdwan, West Bengal, and that it shall not be used or permitted to be used for any other purpose whatsoever. It is no this specific finding about the term of the contract that the Division Bench of this Court in 44 S.T.C. 347 took the view that it amounted to inter-state sale. In this judgment, the Division Bench relying on Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa 37 STC 207 observed:- "That the following conditions must be satisfied before a sale can - be said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce: (1) that there is an agreement to sell which contains a stipulation express or implied regarding the movement of the goods from one State to another: (ii) that in pursuance of the said contract the goods in fact moved from one State to another; and (iii) that ultimately a concluded sale takes place in the State where the goods are sent which must be different from the State from which the goods move." 18. This Court had occasion to consider this question also in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. C.P. Manganese Ore Co. 54 STC 145 and C.P. Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. 54 STC 147 and following the decision 44 S. T. C. 347 (supra), same view was propounded. In English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 38 STC 475 their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering the question of section 3 (a) of the Central Sale Tax Act and it was observed: "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 doe's 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 commerce, that the covenant regarding inter-state movement must be specified in the contract itself. It will be enough if the movement is in pursuance of and incidental to the contract of sale," and it is on these observations that emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the petitioner, In The State Trading Corporation of India v. The State of Mysore 14 STC 188 their Lordships quoted with approval 11 S. T. C. 655 and observed that movement is the result of covenant or incident of the contract of sale. Similarly, in Oil India Ltd. v. The Superintendent of Taxes 35 STC 445 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: "This court has held in a number of cases that if the movement of goods from one State to another is the result of a covenant or an incident of the contract of sale, then the sale is an inter-State sale." 19. An attempt was made by learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the movement of goods from the State of Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra or Gujarat may not be as a result of covenant of the contract of sale but from the facts which are not in dispute it appears that it was an incident of contract of sale and in that context referred to South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 48 STC 232, as in this decision their Lordships while considering section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act after referring to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court observed: "If there is a conceivable link between the movement of the good and the buyer's contract, and if in the course of inter-State movement the goods move only to reach the buyer in satisfaction of his contract of purchase and such a nexus is otherwise inexplicable, then the sale or purchase of the specific or ascertained goods ought to be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, as such a sale or purchase occasioned the movement of the goods from one State to another," and on the basis of these observations it was contended that if a conceivable link between the movement of the goods and the buyer's contract is established, section 3 (a) is attracted, but a perusal of this judgment clearly goes to show that although this language is used but it does not carry the matter further than what was observed in 11 S. T. C. 655, quoted above, as in the same judgment their Lordships observed. "any inter-State movement must be the result of covenant express or implied in the contract of sale or an incident of the contract." The same is the view expressed in other decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties. It is, therefore, clear that if the movement of goods is either under the covenant of sale as it was in the cases of this Court referred to above or an incident of sale as has been found in some of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, then alone the transaction will fall within the ambit of section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. So far as the contract in this case is concerned, as has been discussed above, the movement of goods is not either the incident of sale or a result of covenant of sale. The sale was completed when the bid of the purchaser was accepted. There was no term in the contract that the petitioner could not use these goods any where except in the State of Maharashtra or Gujarat, nor there was anything express or implied in the contract to indicate that the goods were sold for movement to the State of Maharashtra or Gujarat. The goods were moved from the State of Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra or Gujarat only because of the desire of the petitioner and issue of a sale certificate and transit passes are circumstances which do not bring the movement of goods as an incident of sale but only indicate that the seller i.e., the forest authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh permitted the petitioner to move the goods from the State of Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra. It, therefore, could not be said that this movement of goods was either under a covenant express or implied or that it was as a result of the incident of sale and, therefore, it could not be said that the movement of goods was occasioned by the contract of sale. In this view of the matter, therefore, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners could not be accepted. 20. The petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioners.