JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal (Board of Revenue, Gwalior) referred the undernoted common questions of law in both these reference applications arising out of the orders passed in Appeal Nos. 58-PBR/82 and 79-PBR/82 : "1(a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holing that a transaction of Rs. 1,91,301 in respect of despatches made to the buyers of Banswada, Kota, Bhimani Mandi, Nimbaheda and Pratapgarh and constituted inter-State sales as the goods were directly despathched to buyer at these places by the headquarter ? (b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that a transaction of Rs. 63,000 constituted sales having being made in the course of inter-State trade or commerce when the goods were despathched to various buyers of Chittorgarh where the assessee's depot is located and the goods were not unloaded at the depot and the goods were directly delivered to the buyers ? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that a transaction of Rs. 2,39,000 was in respect of inter-State sales when the goods were directly despathched to buyers located at the places in Maharashtra other than where the assessee's depots were located by the headquarters at Indore ?" 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The assessee (M/s. Sanghi Beverages Private Limited, Indore) owns one depot at Chittorgarh in Rajasthan and four depots at Bhusawal, Jalgaon. Dhulia and Nasseerabad in Maharashtra. In assessment turnovers amounting to Rs. 2,54,301 and Rs. 3,94,040 were deemed as inter-State sale and taxed accordingly. The contention of the assessee was that the goods were despathched to the depots and the sales were made to the depots and as such they should not have been taxed under the Central Act. The assessment orders were passed in 177/69-70 (Provincial) on December 9, 1975 (annexure "A/1") and in Case No. 140/69/70 (Central) on December 9, 1975 (annexure "A/2") by Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore Region, Indore. The period of assessment was April 1, 1969 to March 31, 1970. The assessee then filed appeals before the Additional Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bhopal. The period of assessment was April 1, 1969 to March 31, 1970. The assessee then filed appeals before the Additional Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bhopal. The appeal registered as No. 4/75/76 (Provincial) was allowed only in part by order dated November 30, 1981 (annexure "B/1") and the appeal registered as No. 1/75-76 (Central) was dismissed by order dated January 11, 1982 (annexure "B/2"). The assessee then preferred Appeal Nos. 58-PBR/82 and 79- PBR/82 before the Tribunal. The appeals were only allowed in part so far as the quantum of turnover was concerned by order dated August 27, 1983 (annexures "C/1" and "C/2"). Thereafter the assessee filed the Reference Application No. 123-PBR/83 (annexure "D/1") and Reference Application No. 124-PBR/83 (annexure "D-2") under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 seeking reference of the case to this Court. On these applications, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the aforesaid questions of law for decision. 3. We have heard Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S. S. Samvatsar, for the applicant/assessee and Shri K. K. Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the non-applicant/department. 4. The Tribunal appreciated the facts and features in both the cases and concluded against the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decision of the apex Court in English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1976] 38 STC 475. The law is not in tenebrosity. When the movement of goods from one State to another is an incident of the contract of sale then it is a sale in the course of inter-State trade falling under section 3(a) of the Central Act. It does not matter in which State the property in the goods passes. What is in fact 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 convenient express or implied in the contract of sale or an incident of the contract. It is not at all necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State movement in order that the sale may be deemed to have occasioned such movement. The Tribunal held that the sales in question shall be construed as inter State sales. 5. It is not at all necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State movement in order that the sale may be deemed to have occasioned such movement. The Tribunal held that the sales in question shall be construed as inter State sales. 5. Shri Gupta submitted that on findings reached by the Tribunal, there are as such no questions of law to be decided. According to him the goods were directly despathched to buyers and the goods were not unloaded at the depot but delivered to the buyers. On these findings Shri Gupta submitted no questions of law as such arose and the matter stands concluded by the decision of the apex Court reported in [1976] 38 STC 475 (English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer). 6. This finding of fact, not shown to be perverse or perishable, reached by the Tribunal did not give, as held in [1976] 103 ITR 543 (SC) [Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd.] and in [1971] 79 ITR 499 (SC) (Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh v. Kotrika Venkataswamy and Sons) any rise to the question of law and as such the Tribunal rightly rejected the reference application. 7. In Marbury v. Madison 1 - Crauch 137 (1803), it was observed that - "Affirmative words are often, in their operations, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all." 8. It is in the area of legislative ambiguities, yet get receding, that courts have to fill gaps, clear doubts and mitigate hardships. From the words of Judge learned Hand, spoken in Cabell v. Markham (1945) 148 F 2d 737, 739, we get enough light to locate correct path : "It is one of surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence.........to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning." 9. Section 2(n) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 defines the sale as any transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or for other valuable consideration and includes five other situations as enumerated in this section. We find that the Tribunal was justified in holding that stated transaction of Rs. Section 2(n) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 defines the sale as any transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or for other valuable consideration and includes five other situations as enumerated in this section. We find that the Tribunal was justified in holding that stated transaction of Rs. 1,91,301 in respect of despatches made to the buyers of Banswada, Kota, Bhimani Mandi, Nimbaheda and Pratapgarh constituted inter-State sales as the goods were directly despathched to buyers of these places by the headquarters. We also find that the Tribunal correctly held that the transaction of Rs. 63,000 constituted sales having been made in the course of inter-State trade or commerce when the goods were despathched to various buyers of Chittorgarh where the assessee's depots were located and the goods were not unloaded at the depot and the goods were directly delivered to the buyers. In our view the Tribunal was also justified in holding that a transaction of Rs. 2,39,000 was in respect of inter-State sales when the goods were directly despathched to buyers located at the places in Maharashtra other than where the assessee's depots were located by the headquarters at Indore. As the answer turned out on the facts and the facts were found proved, we are satisfied with the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal. 10. In the result, we answer the aforesaid questions in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the department and against the assessee. 11. Both the reference applications are answered accordingly with no order as to costs. 12. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal under the signature of the Register of this Court and seal of the High Court. 13. A copy of this order shall be placed in the connected Misc. Civil case No. 357 of 1986. Reference answered accordingly.