JUDGMENT : 1. Special leave granted. 2. These two appeals filed by the State of Tamil Nadu relate to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The short question which arises for determination is whether the transactions in question are inter-state sales liable to be be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act. 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The brief facts which need to be stated are as under. 3. Assessment year 1976-77 - the respondent's branch at Vijaywada placed an indent on 1.3.1976. The branch received an order from a customer on 24.4.1976. The Head Office at Madras executed the indent on 27.4.1976. The branch delivered the goods from its stock on 4.5.1976, which the buyer received at their factory on 5.5.1976. 4. Assessment year 1977-78 - the Vijaywada branch placed an indent on 31.8.1977. The branch received an order from a customer on 28.9.1977. The Head Office executed the indent on 19.10.1977. The branch supplied the goods from its stock on 24.10.1977 which the buyer received at the factory on 27.10.1977. 5. On these bare facts the question in whether the transactions were in the nature of inter-State sale. 6. In English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. (38 STC 475) this Court held that when the movement of goods from one State to another is an incident of the contract of sale it is a sale in the course of inter-State transaction falling within Section 3(a) of the Act. It does not matter in which State the property in the goods passes. What it decisive is whether the sale is one which occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. If the movement is induced by some covenant or contract of sale or an incident of the contract it would fall within the meaning of an inter-State sale and would attract the provision of Section 3(a). To the same effect is the decision of this Court in South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (48 STC 232). In that case this court observed that if there is a conceivable link between any contract of sale and the movement of goods from one State to another in order to discharge the obligation under the contract of sale, the interposition of an agent of the seller notwithstanding, the transaction or character of the sale would be an inter-State transaction. In that case this court observed that if there is a conceivable link between any contract of sale and the movement of goods from one State to another in order to discharge the obligation under the contract of sale, the interposition of an agent of the seller notwithstanding, the transaction or character of the sale would be an inter-State transaction. Again in Union of India & Ann v. K.G. Khosla & Co.(P) Ltd. & Ors. (1979) (3) SCR 453, on fact it was found that pursuant to a contract executed at Delhi goods were manufactured at Faridabad. On these facts this Court held that in order that a sale may be regarded as an inter-State sale, it is immaterial whether the property in the goods passes in one State or another because the question whether or not it is an inter- State sale does not depend upon the circumstances as to in which State the property in the goods passes. It may pass in either State and yet the sale can be an inter-State sale. Therefore, for the purpose of Section 3(a) it is not necessary that a contract of sale must itself provide for the movement of goods or that the movement of goods must be occasioned specifically in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale. That apart, if, however, it is established on facts placed on record that the movement of goods was occasioned on account of the contract of sale, it would ordinarily be an inter-State transaction. In the present case, unfortunately, the evidence does not disclose whether the quantity of goods indented by the Vijayawada branch and the quantity of goods supplied by the Head Office was the same or whether the quantity of goods supplied was the same as the quantity of goods ordered by the buyer. If it is the latter there would be very little difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the movement of goods was occasioned on account of the order placed by the customer and that would clinch the issue. If it is the latter there would be very little difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the movement of goods was occasioned on account of the order placed by the customer and that would clinch the issue. If, however, the situation is that the goods indented by the branch and the goods supplied by the Head Office tallied insofar as the quantity is concerned, it may well be that the nexus with the customers' order may not be inferred unless it happens to be the same quantity as ordered by the customer in which case it would have to be determined on facts. In the absence of evidence in this behalf as regards the quantity of goods indented, supplied and ordered it is difficult to reach a positive conclusion. We, therefore, deem it appropriate that the matters be remitted to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, which may decide the matter after calling for the record from the authority below and in the light of the decisions referred to above, if necessary, by even calling for fresh evidence. The appeals will stand allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.