Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The petitioner is the manufacturer of tractors and farm equipments. It has questioned the orders of the Tribunal and the authorities below who have held that the inter-State sales effected by the petitioner-assessee are assessable to tax and that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of section 6(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee had claimed that the inter-State sale effected by the assessee was only a second inter-State sale to a registered dealer and had relied on the proviso to section 6(2)(b) of the Act which exempts from tax the transaction entered into by the assessee if it satisfies the requirements laid down therein. 2. The undisputed facts are that the assessee had placed orders with the other manufactures in this State. The order required the manufacturers to conform strictly to the drawings provided by the assessee and the sample approved by the assessee. The order provided that the goods had to be delivered either to the assessee or to its nominee. There was a warranty clause that all units were to be covered against the manufacturing defects for a period of six months from the date of delivery to the user. The vendor was required to inform the assessee as to when the goods were ready for inspection and the goods were to be despatched after the unconditional approval given by an Inspector of the assessee. It was also stated that the price was f.o.r. Madras plus tax as applicable. The clause provided that the goods were to be despatched as per instructions of the assessee. 3. The assessee after its Inspector had inspected the goods, gave instructions to the vendor to effect delivery at destinations outside the State. The mode of transportation was either by rail or by vehicle and the vendor was required to deliver to the assessee the railway receipt or the way bill. Those documents were thereafter endorsed by the assessee and sent to its buyers outside the State, which the goods were in transit by road or rail from this State to those destinations outside the State. That the sale so effected by the assessee to buyers outside the State is an inter-State sale is not in dispute. 4. Those documents were thereafter endorsed by the assessee and sent to its buyers outside the State, which the goods were in transit by road or rail from this State to those destinations outside the State. That the sale so effected by the assessee to buyers outside the State is an inter-State sale is not in dispute. 4. If the sale effected to the assessee is also a inter-State sale, the assessee would not be liable for payment of tax by virtue of section 6(2)(b), as a second inter-State sale, after tax had been paid on the first inter-State sale. The case of the assessee was that it had paid the tax at the rate of 4 per cent to its vendor and that the assessment of the vendor had also been completed by treating the sales effected by the vendor to the assessee as inter-State sales. However, no evidence was produced to substantiate that assertion. The State has also not placed any material to drag out the claim of the assessee. 5. It is the case of the assessee that once the sale is found to be an inter-State sale and all the conditions stipulated in section 3(b) are satisfied, it cannot be regarded as a local sale even if the property in the goods is found to have passed within the State. for the assessee referred to section 4 of the Act which opens with the words "Subject to the provisions contained in section 3". It is only when a sale is found to be not of the inter-State character, section 4 would be attracted for the purpose of determining the location of the sale. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that on facts proved in this case the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 3(a) or in the alternative section 3(b) of the Act. The case of the assessee so far as section 3(a) is concerned is that the sale effected by the assessee's vendor occasioned the movements of the goods as the assessee was entitled to give instructions regarding delivery to the vendor and such instructions required the vendor to deliver the goods to the carrier, for the purpose of movement of those goods outside the State to the destination specified by the assessee. Relying on the decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Dharangadhara Trading Co. Relying on the decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Dharangadhara Trading Co. Ltd. it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the delivery instructions given to the vendor must necessarily be read as a part of the contract and if so read, it would be beyond any doubt that the movement of the goods manufactured by the assessee's vendor commenced after receipt of the instructions given by the assessee and sale to the assessee occasioned the movement of the goods from this State to another State. It is not in dispute that the goods in fact had moved under those lorry receipts/way bills to the named destination outside the State. Once that sale is found to be an inter-State sale the second inter-State sale that was effected by the assessee would not be assessable to tax. 6. In the case of Dharangadhara Trading Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court upheld the view that had been taken by the High Court that the delivery instructions given by the ultimate buyer to a Trading Company which had bought the goods from a manufacturing company would be read as a part of the contract under which the manufacturing company, placed the goods on rail within the State of Tamil Nadu with instructions to deliver the goods to the ultimate buyers outside the State. It was not in dispute, in that case, that the instructions by the ultimate buyer had only been given to the Trading Company and not to the manufacturing company which, under the contract of sale of the goods with the Trading Company had despatched the goods by rail and thereby effected the sale to the Trading Company. If the delivery instructions given by the assessee to its vendor are read as a part of the contract between the assessee and his vendor, the contract itself must be held to have occasioned the movement of the goods, as the vendor was bound to comply with the delivery instructions and that delivery instructions clearly contemplated the movement of the goods from Tamil Nadu to destination outside Tamil Nadu. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee did not take physical delivery of the goods from its vendor at any point of time, and the goods were delivered to the carrier by the vendor, and not by the assessee. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee did not take physical delivery of the goods from its vendor at any point of time, and the goods were delivered to the carrier by the vendor, and not by the assessee. Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharangadhara Trading Co. Ltd., the case of the assessee would fall under section 3(a) of the Act. 7. The case of the assessee under sub-section (b) of section 3 that the sale was effected by transfer of documents of title though prima facie supported by the fact that the lorry receipts were handed over to the assessee after the goods had been placed on board the carrier under section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, delivery of the documents of title can be completed by mere delivery and not necessarily by way of endorsement we are not inclined to accept the assessee's case under section 3(b). The goods transported under the consignment not belonged to the assessee and not to its vendor, as the property in the goods passed on to the assessee at the time the goods were delivered to the carrier and was not postponed to the time when the lorry receipts were handed over to the assessee. Assessee did not acquire title by reason of the handing over of the lorry receipts, but under the terms of the contract which required delivery to the carrier. 8. The fact-situation before the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Mysore Chromite Limited 1995 (27) ITR 128 on which reliance was placed is however different. The Constitution Bench therein held that in the case of f.o.b. sales, the vendor has a right in those goods and by postponing the point of transfer of title to the goods to the point at which the bill of lading was handed over to the vendee, and the passing of the title would take place only at the place where the receipts were handed over. 9. As we have found that the sale effected by the vendor of the assessee to the assessee was a sale occasioned the movement of goods from State to outside the State that sale was an inter-State sale under section 3(a). 9. As we have found that the sale effected by the vendor of the assessee to the assessee was a sale occasioned the movement of goods from State to outside the State that sale was an inter-State sale under section 3(a). Consequently, the order of the Tribunal levying tax on the second inter-State sale effected by the assessee cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. The revision petition is allowed. Parties shall bear their respective costs. W.P. No. 8020 of 1986 dated July 1, 1998 : It is not brought to our notice that the facts averred in the writ petition have not been disputed by the State in the counter-affidavit filed by it. It is therefore unnecessary to allow the matter to proceed any further before the authority who issued the show cause notice as the very issue which is required to be decided on the basis of the notice had already been decided by this Court in the connected case, viz., T.C. No. 822 of 1986. 2. We have heard the learned Government Pleader (Taxes) again today and we are satisfied that the matters in issue in this petition and those in connected T.C. (R) are the same and the applicable law is one and the same. 3. We therefore allow the writ petition after recalling our earlier order which was dictated in court on June 29, 1998. Parties to bear their own costs. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed.