PATEL BROS. & CO. v. STATE OF GUJARAT. — 1991 DIGILAW 122 (GUJ)

JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by S. D. SHAH, J. - On two applications being made to the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act", the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for our decision : "1. Whether, on the material or evidence on record, the Tribunal was right in holding that all or any of the fifty-five transactions in dispute in Second Appeal Nos. 86 and 87 of 1976 before the Tribunal, were not sales made by M/s. Jivanlal & Co., the commission agent, to the Bombay buyers but were sales made by the applicant-company to the Bombay buyers ? 2. Whether, on the material or evidence on record, the Tribunal was right in holding that the movement from Gujarat to Maharashtra of the goods in all or any of the fifty-five transactions in dispute in Second Appeal Nos. 86 and 87 of 1976 before the Tribunal, was made in pursuance of, or was incidental to, a contract entered into by the applicant-company of sale of the goods to the Bombay buyers ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fifty-five transactions in dispute in Second Appeal Nos. 86 and 87 of 1976 before the Tribunal, were inter-State sales of the company in terms of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as between the company and the company buyers and that it was not true that all or any of the fifty-five transactions in question were sales effected by the commission agent at Bombay locally with the Bombay buyers ?" 2. In order to answer the questions referred to us it is necessary to set out relevant facts in brief : (i) The applicant-public limited company carries on the business of manufacturing and selling edible oil and oil-cakes at Bardoli. It was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and subsequently, under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. It was also registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and subsequently, under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. It was also registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the relevant year commencing from lst October, 1968 to 30th September, 1969, the applicant has entered into fifty-five transactions of despatch of certain quantities of oil-cakes to Bombay parties, namely, M/s. Godrej Soap Pvt. Ltd., Kamani Oil Mills, Swastik Oil Mills, Sonawala Industries, Tata Oil Mills, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay buyers"). It is the case of the applicant that one M/s. C. Jivanlal & Co. was its commission agent. Said C. Jivanlal & Co. entered into contracts for supply of groundnut oil-cakes to the Bombay buyers and thereafter, according to the applicant, said C. Jivanlal & Co. obtained supplies from the applicant-company. The goods were accordingly supplied by the applicant-company to M/s. Jivanlal & Co., who in turn, supplied the same to the Bombay buyers. It is the case of the applicant that the transactions were in the nature of consignment to its commission agent at Bombay, who entered into transactions of sale with Bombay buyers and who discharged the obligation of payment of tax under the Bombay Act as applicable in the State of Maharashtra. (ii) Initially, the Sales Tax Officer, Surat, while assessing the applicant regarded these transactions as consignment transactions and did not levy any tax under the Central Act. However, subsequently, he initiated proceedings under section 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act for reassessment since the turnover of such transactions has escaped the assessment and subjected the amount of Rs. 8,37,077 to tax under the Central Act holding that the said transactions amounted to inter-State sales under section 3(a) of the Central Act. (iii) Being aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Officer, the applicant-company preferred two appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who rejected the same by confirming the findings reached by the Sales Tax Officer. (iv) The applicant carried the matter further in second appeal by preferring Second Appeal Nos. 86 and 87 of 1976 and the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal by judgment and order dated 29th December, 1980, substantially dismissed those appeals, inter alia, holding that the disputed transactions constitute inter-State sales as contemplated under section 3(a) of the Central Act. (iv) The applicant carried the matter further in second appeal by preferring Second Appeal Nos. 86 and 87 of 1976 and the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal by judgment and order dated 29th December, 1980, substantially dismissed those appeals, inter alia, holding that the disputed transactions constitute inter-State sales as contemplated under section 3(a) of the Central Act. (v) On being moved by the applicant under section 69 of the said Act to refer certain questions of law which arise from its judgment and order, the Tribunal has referred questions referred hereinabove, for our decision. 3. Before we proceed to answer the questions referred to us, it is necessary to refer to certain concurrent findings of fact reached by all the three authorities and such findings of fact are as under : (a) M/s. C. Jivanlal & Co. was acting as commission agent of the applicant-company and the applicant-company has despatched goods to the Bombay buyers showing them as consignees in the railway receipts. (b) The applicant has not despatched/delivered the entrusted goods in question directly to the commission agent but had forwarded the goods directly to the Bombay buyers by obtaining railway receipts in their name and not in the name of the commission agent. (c) M/s. Jivanlal & Co., i.e., the commission agent, never stocked any goods of its own for sale at Bombay and that it had no godown or warehouse for that purpose at Bombay. This fact alone may not be very relevant, but taken jointly with other factors assumes relevance. (d) C. Jivanlal & Co. used to remain in constant contact over telephone with the applicant-company in respect of market price of oil-cakes at Bombay, quantity or bulk of goods required by the Bombay buyers, availability of quantity of oil-cakes with the applicant-company for supply and sale to Bombay buyers in terms of agreement of sale. (e) M/s. C. Jivanlal & Co. would enter into contract of sale with Bombay buyers after such telephonic contact or at times before such contact, but after making necessary preliminary enquiries with the applicant-company it was entering into various agreements of sale with the Bombay buyers for and on behalf of the applicant-company. (f) After entering into such agreements or contracts of sale with Bombay buyers M/s. C. Jivanlal & Co. (f) After entering into such agreements or contracts of sale with Bombay buyers M/s. C. Jivanlal & Co. would, once again, contact the applicant-company over telephone and instruct to despatch the required goods by railway by obtaining railway receipts in the name of concerned Bombay buyers as consignees and to despatch the goods to the relevant railway siding of each purchaser. (g) In respect of all the transactions the applicant-company had remained in contact with the commission agent daily over telephone, prior to as well as after the commission agent would enter into contract of sale with Bombay buyers, and the applicant-company would immediately receive advice from the commission agent that it had agreed to sell certain quantities of goods to a particular buyer on a particular rate and price, and that too, with instructions to applicant to despatch the relevant goods from Gujarat to Bombay. (b) As a result of such instructions, the applicant-company would move the goods by railway by obtaining railway receipts in the name of buyers concerned as the consignees and also particular railway siding of buyer at Bombay as being destination of concerned goods. Thus, the applicant would move the goods to Bombay buyers as a result of exchange of correspondence and talk over telephone between the applicant-company and the commission agent. (i) The applicant would thereafter and on such instructions being received from the commission agent despatch or forward the goods accordingly by railway to the Bombay buyers and obtain necessary railway receipts showing those buyers as the consignees of the goods. (j) The applicant would thereafter forward those railway receipts to the commission agent, but that was merely to enable the commission agent to collect about 90 per cent of the amount of sale price from the buyers against delivery of railway receipts at the time of taking delivery of the goods by the Bombay buyers from the railway authorities. (j) The applicant would thereafter forward those railway receipts to the commission agent, but that was merely to enable the commission agent to collect about 90 per cent of the amount of sale price from the buyers against delivery of railway receipts at the time of taking delivery of the goods by the Bombay buyers from the railway authorities. (k) Even if the commission agent had initially not disclosed to the Bombay buyers the fact that the applicant was the seller of the goods at any time up to entering into contract of sale all those facts were certainly made known to the applicant as well as to the Bombay buyers immediately thereafter because the applicant would be able to direct exact quantity of goods to a particular contract and forward the same from Gujarat to Bombay to a particular buyer at a particular siding and address. (l) It is also required to be noted that in all these transactions railway freight had been paid by the purchasers, i.e., Bombay buyers who had also borne other expenses while taking the delivery of the goods as consignees. (m) It is also pertinent to note that unless informed and instructed by the commission agent in advance the applicant would not have been in a position to obtain railway receipts in the name of different Bombay buyers with the addresses of their railway sidings and it would not have been possible for the applicant to move the relevant goods from Gujarat to Bombay and that too in the name of specific buyers. That there exists prior agreement of sale in each case as effected by the commission agent with the Bombay buyers on behalf of the applicant and such prior agreements were made known to the applicant by telephone conversation and instructions and such instructions were immediately followed by or had occasioned the movement of goods by the applicant from Gujarat to Bombay which had ultimately terminated into delivery and sale of goods to Bombay buyers at Bombay. 4. From the above findings reached concurrently by all the three authorities, we are required to answer the questions referred to us. Before dealing with the submissions of Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for the applicant, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions and to examine the legal position. 4. From the above findings reached concurrently by all the three authorities, we are required to answer the questions referred to us. Before dealing with the submissions of Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for the applicant, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions and to examine the legal position. Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act makes every dealer liable for payment of tax under the Act on all the sales effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The word "sale" has been defined in section 2(g) of the said Act to mean any transfer of property in goods by one person to another for cash or for deferred payment or for any other valuable consideration. According to section 3 of the Act 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. In this case we are concerned with clause (a) of section 3 of the said Act. 5. Sale of goods can be said to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if it is shown that the sale has occasioned the movement of the goods from one State to another. In order to be sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, it must satisfy three requirements, namely, (a) there must be a sale, (b) the goods must actually be moved from one State to another, and (c) the sale and movement of such goods must be part of the same transaction. The word "occasions" is used as a verb and means to cause or to be the immediate cause of. 6. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [1970] 26 STC 354 had occasion to consider transaction of sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. 6. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [1970] 26 STC 354 had occasion to consider transaction of sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The Supreme Court in that case found that the sales to be exigible to tax under the Central Act must be shown to have occasioned the movement of goods or articles from one State to another and that the movement must be the result of a covenant or incident of the contract of sale. It can, therefore, be said that the sale of goods is in the course of inter-State trade. If the sale or movement of goods from one State to another are integral parts of same transaction, there must be direct nexus between the sale and the movement of goods from one State to another in other words, the movement should be incident of and be necessitated by the contract of sale and thus be inextricably linked with the sale of goods. 7. From the language of section 3(a) it is clear that the movement of goods from one State to another must be under contract of sale. The movement of goods which takes place independently of a contract of sale would not fall within the ambit of section 3(a) of the said Act. Said section further makes it clear that there must be a contract of sale preceding the movement of goods from one State to another and the movement of goods should have been caused by and be the result of that contract of sale. If there was no contract of sale preceding the movement of goods the movement can obviously be not ascribed to contract of sale nor can it be said that the sale has occasioned the movement of goods from one State to another. 8. In the light of the above principles which clearly emerge from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. 8. In the light of the above principles which clearly emerge from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1970] 26 STC 354 and Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. State of Haryana reported in [1973] 32 STC 629, we have to ascertain as to whether the transactions in question amount to sale in the course of inter-State trade as submitted by the department or they are consignments for sale simpliciter as submitted by Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant. The most salient and conspicuous features of transactions which are required to be kept in mind are already referred by us while reproducing the concurrent findings of fact reached by all the three lower authorities. However, we may point out that it cannot be said that the goods had moved from Bardoli to Bombay by way of consignment for sale simpliciter. Prior to the movement of goods a contract of sale is entered into by C. Jivanlal & Co. with the Bombay buyers. Both prior to entering into such transaction and subsequent thereto C. Jivanlal & Co. had remained in close contact with the applicant over telephone. By prior telephonic conversation the commission agent had made necessary primary enquiries with the applicant as regards market price of the goods, quantity of the goods required by the Bombay buyers and the availability of quantity with the applicant for supply to Bombay buyers. Thereafter, the commission agent had entered into contracts with the Bombay buyers and had again contacted the applicant over telephone and instructed the applicant to despatch required goods by railway by obtaining railway receipts in the name of relevant Bombay buyers as consignees so as to despatch the goods through relevant railway siding of each Bombay buyer. There is no room for doubt therefore that in respect of transactions in dispute the applicant had remained in close contact with the commission agent over telephone both prior to as well as after the commission agent had entered into contract with the Bombay buyers and upon instructions received from the commission agent the applicant had despatched relevant goods from Gujarat to Bombay and as a result thereof the goods have moved from Gujarat to Maharashtra. It is also pertinent to note that from the fact of prior and subsequent telephonic conversation between the applicant and the commission agent (which fact does not appear to have been disputed at any stage) it becomes clear that even if the commission agent had not initially disclosed to the Bombay buyers the name of the applicant as seller of the goods at any time prior to entering into contract of sale, all these facts certainly were made known to the applicant as well as to Bombay buyers immediately thereafter. 9. We are conscious of the fact that in a transaction of consignment for sale if the goods are moved from one place to another without there being prior contract of sale into existence, it cannot be said that the transaction of sale has occasioned the movement of goods. On facts and circumstances of each case, it shall have to be seen as to what has occasioned the movement of goods and if we come to conclusion that the movement of goods was independent of transaction of sale and was not part and parcel of the same transaction, section 3(a) would not be attracted. 10. Where the goods are consigned for sale to commission agent or distributors independently of contract of sale having taken place between the commission agent or distributor and the third party and the goods are received by commission agent or distributor as such for the purpose of being sold thereafter, the movement of goods cannot be said to have been caused or occasioned by any transaction of sale and section 3(a) would not be attracted. This was the situation that prevailed in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1973] 32 STC 629 (SC), where the assessee-company manufactured refrigerators, deep-freezers, compressors and other similar articles at Faridabad in Haryana. The company has its registered office, sales office and godown at Delhi. The company was registered as a dealer at Faridabad, both under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The said refrigerators manufactured by the company were marketed under the trade marks of "Kelvinator", "Leonard" and "Gem" through distributors. The goods were sent from Faridabad to Delhi. The octroi during its transport from Faridabad to Delhi was paid by the company. The said refrigerators manufactured by the company were marketed under the trade marks of "Kelvinator", "Leonard" and "Gem" through distributors. The goods were sent from Faridabad to Delhi. The octroi during its transport from Faridabad to Delhi was paid by the company. The goods were received at the destination, i.e., at the company's godown at Delhi by the company. The goods were thereafter sold at Delhi in pursuance of the orders. The bill was raised from Delhi and the price of the goods was received at Delhi. On these facts, the Supreme Court found that the agreements between the company and the distributors were merely agreements for the distribution of refrigerators and were not contracts of sale. The Supreme Court found that in deciding the question whether the transaction between the parties is in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the court should look not merely at the distribution agreements but regard should be had of the entire course of dealings between the parties. The court, as a matter of fact, found as under : "The mode of dealings between the parties was that subsequent to the distribution agreements, orders were placed by the distributors with the appellant after the refrigerators had reached the appellant's sales office and godown in Delhi." The court, therefore, found that actually the sales have taken place at Delhi and the property in the goods passed at Delhi after delivery. The court therefore found that despite agreements between the company and the distributors and despite the fact that the goods were assigned to Delhi from Faridabad there was, in fact, no contract of sale preceding the movement of goods from one State to another. 11. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Hercules Rubber Co. reported in [1983] 54 STC 85 the Division Bench of the Madras High Court was called upon to decide as to whether the transaction was in the course of inter-State sale. The assessee in that case manufactured certain goods in Madras and their branch office at Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh. Various purchasers in Andhra Pradesh placed orders with the assessee's branch office at Vijayawada. Subsequently, at the instance of the branch office the goods were despatched by the assessee to the branch office at Vijayawada. The goods were received by the branch office at Vijayawada and the branch office took the goods into their stock. Various purchasers in Andhra Pradesh placed orders with the assessee's branch office at Vijayawada. Subsequently, at the instance of the branch office the goods were despatched by the assessee to the branch office at Vijayawada. The goods were received by the branch office at Vijayawada and the branch office took the goods into their stock. The branch office subsequently delivered the goods to the purchasers from whom the orders were received. In this situation the question arose as to whether the transactions were in the nature of inter-State sale or mere transfer of goods from one branch to another. From the mode of dealings between the parties and the fact that the goods were sent to the branch office as per its requisition and in view of further fact that such goods were received by the branch office and were taken into their stock and thereafter they were delivered to the purchaser, the Division Bench found that, in fact, there was a contract of sale between the local buyers and the branch office at Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh. The court applied the test of direct link between the assessee who was in Madras and the dealer of Andhra Pradesh and found that the despatch of goods could not be taken to have been occasioned movement by the contract of sale entered into by the assessee's branch office with the local buyer and therefore, the transactions were merely in the nature of branch transfers. 12. From the above decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court it becomes clear that if there is no conceivable link between the assessee and the ultimate purchaser it cannot be said that the transaction is one of sale so as to attract the provisions of section 3(a) of the said Act. In the absence of such link it cannot be said that the ultimate transaction of sale to the purchaser has caused or resulted into movement of goods. Therefore, where the goods are sent by way of consignment for sale to the distributors or to the branch office for the purpose of being stored and stocked either with the commission agent or the distributor or the branch office it is not the transaction of sale that causes or occasions the movement of goods. 13. Mr. Therefore, where the goods are sent by way of consignment for sale to the distributors or to the branch office for the purpose of being stored and stocked either with the commission agent or the distributor or the branch office it is not the transaction of sale that causes or occasions the movement of goods. 13. Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for the applicant also invites our attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Indian Duplicators Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1984] 57 STC 263. This case is clearly parallel to the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Hercules Rubber Co. [1983] 54 STC 85. In this case also the assessee, a manufacturer and dealer in duplicators and duplicating ink, was having its branch office at Hyderabad. The goods were supplied to the branch office at Hyderabad and the branch office sold the goods to local buyers against orders placed by the buyers with the branch office at Hyderabad. On facts before the court the court found that there was no contract for supply of goods by the Madras Office to Andhra Pradesh buyers. Since the buyer was Andhra Pradesh Government, the goods had the mark of Andhra Pradesh buyer's name, and this fact was pressed into service to contend that the transaction was one of the inter-State sale. The Division Bench did not attach any importance to the fact that the name of the buyer having been found on the goods and found that the mere fact that the mark "Government of Andhra Pradesh" was found on the duplicating ink tubes would not necessarily lead to conclusion that there was completed transaction of sale by the appellant in Madras to the buyers in Andhra Pradesh. The marking at best would indicate that the goods were intended for a person who had entered into a contract of purchase with the buyer in Andhra Pradesh. The court, once again, applied the test of nexus of conceivable link between the assessee and the purchaser, and found that there was no such conceivable link or nexus between the manufacturer (assessee) and the movement of goods for supply to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, especially when the goods were despatched by the assessee in the ordinary course of its business to its branch office. This decision also does not, therefore, in any way, help Mr. This decision also does not, therefore, in any way, help Mr. Joshi in making good his submission. 14. Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, then referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.A. Galiakotwala & Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras reported in [1976] 37 STC 536. In the case before the Supreme Court the assessee had the place of its business at Coimbatore. The mills situated in the State of Madras had entered into agreement with the assessee for purchase of cotton. There was, therefore, one contract of sale. The assessee in his turn thereafter placed orders with its sellers at Bombay for purchase of cotton and under the instructions of the assessee the Bombay sellers despatched the goods to the mill as consignee at Madras. Bombay sellers sent the consignments to the mills but the railway receipts were sent by the Bombay sellers to the assessee. On this fact the court was called upon to decide as to whether the transactions were inter-State sales between the assessee and the mills at Madras. It is required to be noted that in this case there were two independent transactions of sale. First transaction of sale was between the appellant and the mill-company at Madras. That must have preceded the second transaction between the assessee and the seller at Bombay. In fact, after entering into agreement with the mill-company at Madras the assessee had entered into agreement with the sellers at Bombay. Second transaction of sale has, therefore, taken place between the seller at Bombay and the assessee. On the peculiar facts of this case, and in view of the fact that there were two independent transactions of sale, the court found that the Bombay sellers had no privity of contract with the mills at Madras. The Bombay sellers sold the goods to the assessee. The sale by the Bombay seller to the assessee was an inter-State sale. Sale by the assessee to the mill cannot be said to have caused inter-State movement of goods. Mere fact that the goods were consigned by the Bombay seller to the mills in the State of Madras in accordance with the directions of the assessee will not make the transaction inter-State sale. Sale by the assessee to the mill cannot be said to have caused inter-State movement of goods. Mere fact that the goods were consigned by the Bombay seller to the mills in the State of Madras in accordance with the directions of the assessee will not make the transaction inter-State sale. In view of the fact that there were two independent transactions and the movement of goods was caused by the transaction between the assessee and the Bombay seller the court found that the transaction between the assessee and the mill company at Madras cannot be said to be transaction of inter-State sale. In our opinion, this decision in no way supports the case of the assessee before us especially when we have already found that the movement of goods in the case before us was occasioned by the transaction of sale with the Bombay buyers and not independent of those transactions. In the case before us there is a link between the assessee and the ultimate Bombay buyers or between the assessee and the transaction of sale to Bombay buyers which has occasioned the movement of goods. This decision also therefore does not in anyway militate against the proposition of law which we have set out. 15. Mr. Joshi then invites our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Cement Distributors (P) Ltd. reported in [1975] 36 STC 389. In the said case the Cement distributors (P) Ltd. as an agent of State Trading Corporation despatched the cement to themselves to Calcutta by ship in pursuance of instructions contained in the authorisation for transfer of stocks from Madras to Calcutta. In fact, there was no transaction of sale and the court found that the movement of goods from Madras to Calcutta did not take place as a result of any contract of sale and the transaction was not inter-State sale liable to tax under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In fact, the goods were despatched by the assessee to themselves at Calcutta according to directions received from State Trading Corporation. After arrival of goods at Calcutta the assessee was authorised to sell cement. In fact, there was no movement of goods by the assessee as a result of contract of sale between the assessee and the buyer of Calcutta. In fact, the goods were despatched by the assessee to themselves at Calcutta according to directions received from State Trading Corporation. After arrival of goods at Calcutta the assessee was authorised to sell cement. In fact, there was no movement of goods by the assessee as a result of contract of sale between the assessee and the buyer of Calcutta. In the facts of the case, it was found by the court that the movement of goods from one State to another was without any element of sale within the meaning of Central Act and such movement of goods cannot be subjected to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. We do not think this decision, in any way, helps Mr. Joshi in making good the submissions he has made. 16. From the aforesaid discussion it becomes clear that in the case before us the goods were sent by the assessee to Bombay, but they were not sent in advance or they were not sent to the distributor or stockist for the purpose of being stored or stocked for independent transaction of sale. In fact, C. Jivanlal and Co., the commission agent, had telephonic conversation with the assessee both prior and subsequent to ultimate transaction of sale in favour of Bombay buyer. By prior telephonic discussion the commission agent has ascertained the willingness of the assessee to sell the goods, the availability of stock and the price at which the assessee wanted to sell. The commission agent has thereafter approached the Bombay buyer and had struck the deal. The commission agent had, thereafter, once again, contacted the assessee over telephone and had directed the assessee to consign the goods in favour of Bombay buyer with whom the deal was finally done on their railway siding and the assessee had accordingly consigned the goods in the name of the Bombay buyers and the railway receipts were also prepared in the name of Bombay buyers. If it was the case of consignment for sale simpliciter as suggested by Mr. Joshi the goods would have been sent to the agent. If it was the case of consignment for sale simpliciter as suggested by Mr. Joshi the goods would have been sent to the agent. However, the fact of telephonic conversation between the agent and the assessee and the movement of goods succeeded to the transaction of sale having been completed with the Bombay buyers coupled with the fact that the goods were consigned to Bombay buyers with the railway receipts in their name establishes more than a conceivable link between the transaction of sale and the movement of goods. In our opinion, it was the transaction of sale to Bombay buyers that had resulted in movement of goods from Bardoli to Bombay, and therefore, section 3(a) of the Central Act is squarely attracted. 17. At this stage, we may mention that Mr. Joshi faintly argued that out of fifty-five transactions of sale at least for 27 transactions of sale there was no evidence to hold that the movement of goods from Gujarat to Maharashtra took place because of any contract of sale with Bombay buyers. We are afraid we cannot accept this contention in view of the fact that all the lower authorities have concurrently found on facts before them that all the fifty-five transactions of sale took place in the same manner and the movement of goods was effected from Gujarat to Maharashtra because of such transaction of sale. We may note at this stage that from the questions referred to us for our decision no question is specifically referred to us which would call upon us to decide as to whether there was any error in appreciation of evidence or the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal or all the lower authorities were in any case perverse. We, therefore, do not think we can accept this submission of Mr. Joshi. 18. In the result, we answer all the three questions referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the State and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.