{"id":211667,"date":"1975-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975"},"modified":"2018-06-19T15:55:35","modified_gmt":"2018-06-19T10:25:35","slug":"balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975","title":{"rendered":"Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1016, \t\t 1976 SCR (2) 939<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBALABHAGAS HULASCHAND\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ORISSA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/12\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1016\t\t  1976 SCR  (2) 939\n 1976 SCC  (2)\t44\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1980 SC1468\t (18)\n RF\t    1981 SC 446\t (6)\n E&D\t    1985 SC1754\t (10)\n E&D\t    1992 SC1952\t (12,13,15)\n\n\nACT:\n     Central Sales  Tax Act,  1956-Ss. 2(g), 3, 4(2)(a) (b)-\n\"Sale\"-Ambit of the definition \"Sale\".\n     Central Sales  tax Act, 1956-Section 3 (a) read with s.\n4 of  the Sale\tof Goods  Act, 1930-Agreement  to sell is an\nessential ingredient of sale.-\n     Central Sales  Tax Act, 1956, s. 3(a)-Scope of s. 3(a)-\nOccasions the \"movement of goods from one State to another\"-\nWhether the  agreement of  sale\t occasions  movement-Whether\nagreement to  sell was\ta forward  contract or a contract in\nrespect of unascertainable or future goods does not make any\ndifference for the purposes of application of s. 3(a) of the\nAct.\n     Interpretation  of\t statutes-Whether  s.  3(a)  of\t the\nCentral Sales  Tax Act\tis  redundant  and  would  apply  to\ncontingencies which may not happen at all.\n     Central Sales Tax Act, 1956-Section 3(a) read with Art.\n286(3) of  the Constitution  of India-Sale \"in the course of\ninterstate trade  or commerce\"-Conditions  to  be  satisfied\nbefore a  sale can  be said  to take  place in the course of\ninterstate trade or commerce.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant,  a firm  dealing in\t buying and  selling\njute with  headquarters at  Calcutta, used  to purchase\t raw\njute grown  in Orissa and despatch them in bags from Cuttack\nand Dhanmandal\tRailway Station\t to the Railway Mills Siding\nStation in  Calcutta. The  goods were  booked in the name of\nthe buyer  \"KB &  Co\" through  its licensed broker \"EIJ & HE\nLtd.\" and  on the  arrival of  the goods the buyer inspected\nthe goods  and if  they were  found in\taccordance with\t the\nspecifications mentioned  in the agreement of sale, accepted\nthem and  paid their  price. On the basis of these concluded\ntransactions of\t sale the respondent State, levied sales tax\nunder s. 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act on the basis that\nthe  sales   were  interstate  sales.  Since  the  assessing\nauthorities negatived  the contention  of the appellant that\nthe sale was merely an internal sale which took place in the\nState of  West Bengal and since the Tribunal refused to make\na reference,  the appellant  moved the\tHigh Court  under s.\n24(3) of  the Orissa Sales Tax Act to direct the Tribunal to\nmake a statement of the case to the High Court. The Tribunal\nreferred two  points, viz.,  (i) Did  the title to the goods\npass in\t Orissa or in West Bengal and (ii) Even if the title\nin the goods passed in West Bengal, whether in the facts and\ncircumstances of  this\tcase,  the  transaction\t constituted\n\"sale in  the course  of inter-state trade\" ? The High Court\nheld that  although the\t title in  the goods  passed in West\nBengal and  the\t sale  took  place  there,  since  the\tsale\noccasioned the\tmovement of goods from Orissa to West Bengal\nit was\tan inter-State\tsale, and, therefore, it was clearly\ngoverned by s. 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act.\n     Affirming the judgment of the High Court and dismissing\nthe appeals by special leave, the Court,\n^\n     HELD: (1)\tThe definition\tof \"sale\"  in s. 2(g) of the\nCentral Sales  Tax Act\tpostulates the following conditions.\n(i) There  must be  a transfer\tof property  in goods by one\nperson to another; (ii) The transfer must be for cash or for\ndeferred payment  or for  any other  valuable consideration;\nand (iii)  That such a transfer includes a transfer of goods\non  the\t  hire\tpurchase  or  other  system  of\t payment  by\ninstalment etc.\t The word  \"sale\" defined in cl. (g) of s. 2\nand used  in s.\t 3(a), 4(2)  (a) and  (b) is  wide enough to\ninclude not  only a  concluded contract\t of sale  but also a\ncontract or agreement of sale provided the agreement of sale\nstipulates that there was a transfer of property or movement\n940\nof goods. An agreement to sell by which the property did not\nactually pass  was also\t an element of sale. [944H, 945A, C,\nG]\n     Bengal Immunity  Co. Ltd.\tv. The\tState of  Bihar\t and\nothers<\/a>, [1955] 2 SCR 603, relied on.\n     Sales  Tax\t  Officer,  Pilibhit  v.  Budh\tPrakash\t Jai\nPrakash,<\/a> 5 S.T.C. 193, 196, followed.\n     (2) When  the statute  uses the words \"sale or purchase\nof goods\", it automatically attracts the definition of \"sale\nof goods\"  as given  in s. 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930,\nand is\tto some\t extent pari  materia to s. 3 of the Central\nSales Tax  Act\tso  far\t as  the  transactions\tof  sale  is\nconcerned. The\tinevitable conclusion  that fellows from the\ncombined effect of the interpretation of s. 3 of the Central\nSales Tax  Act and  s. 4 of the Sale of Goods Act is that an\nagreement to  sell is  also an\tessential ingredient of sale\nprovided it contains a stipulation of transfer of goods from\nthe seller to the buyer. [946E-F, 947A]\n     (3) Since\tthe word \"sale\" appearing in s. 2(g) as also\nin s. 3(a) of the Act includes an agreement to sell provided\nthe said  agreement contains a stipulation regarding passing\nof the\tproperty, if  there is\ta movement of goods from one\nState to  another, not\tin pursuance of the sale itself, but\nin pursuance  of an  agreement to  sell, which\tlater merges\ninto a\tsale, the  movement of goods would be deemed to have\nbeen occasioned\t by the sale itself wherever it takes place.\nWhen the movement of goods start, they shed the character of\neither unascertained  goods or future goods. For the purpose\nof application\tof s. 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the\nquestion whether  the contract\tis a forward contract or not\nmakes no material difference. [947B, C-D, 948F]\n     (4) A  statutory provision\t cannot be  interpreted in a\nway which  defeats the very object of the Act. It is equally\nwell settled  that the\tLegislature does  not waste words or\nintroduce useless  or redundant\t provisions. The  contention\nthat s.\t 3(a) of  the Central Sales Tax Act was redundant or\nwould apply to contingencies which may not happen at all, is\nnot correct. [948D]\n     Indian Chamber  of Commerce  v. C.I.T.,  West Bengal II\nCalcutta,<\/a> 1976(1) SCR 830, applied.\n     (5) The following conditions must be satisfied before a\nsale can  be said  to take place in the course of interstate\ntrade or commerce:\n     (i) that there is an agreement to sell which contains a\nstipulation express or implied regarding the movement of the\ngoods from one State to another.\n     (ii) that\tin pursuance of the said contract the goods,\nin fact, move from one State to another; and\n     (iii) that\t ultimately a  concluded sale takes place in\nthe State  where the  goods are sent which must be different\nfrom the State from which the goods move, because the tax is\non sale\t and not  on an\t agreement  to\tsell  or  a  forward\ncontract.\n     If these  conditions are satisfied then by virtue of s.\n9 of  the Central  Sales Tax  Act it is the State from which\nthe goods move which will be competent to levy the tax under\nthe provisions\tof the\tCentral Sales  Tax Act. The question\nwhether the  agreement to  sell is in respect of ascertained\nor unascertained  goods, existing  or future  goods, make no\ndifference whatsoever  so far  as the  interpretation of  s.\n3(a) of the Central Sales Tax is concerned. [949A-C, E]\n     Cement Distributors  (P) Ltd.  v. Deputy Commercial Tax\nOfficer,   Lalgudi   and   others,   23\t  S.T.C.   86,\t 94,\ndistinguished.\n     Larsen and\t Toubro Ltd.,  Madras-2 &  others. v.  Joint\nCommercial Tax\tOfficer, 20 S.T.C. 150, 186 & 187; The State\nof Madras  v. N. K. Nataraja Mudaliar<\/a> [1961] 1 SCR 379, 391;\nTata Iron  and Steel  Co. Ltd.\tv. S.  R. Sarkar  and others<\/a>\n[1961] 1  SCR 379,  391; State\tTrading Corporation of India\nLtd. v.\t State of  Mysore,<\/a> [1963]  3 SCR  792, 797-798; Tata\nEngineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd.\n941\nv. The\tAssistant Commissioner\tof Commercial  Taxes & Anr.,\n[1970] 3  SCR 862, 866; M\/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. The\nState of  Haryana<\/a> [1973]  3 SCC 561, 560; The State of Tamil\nNadu v. The Cement Distributors (P) Ltd. and others<\/a> [1975] 4\nSCC 30 and Oil India Ltd. v. The Superintendent of Taxes and\nothers<\/a>, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: CAs Nos. 449-454 of 1971
\n& 888-890 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t special leave\tfrom the  judgment and order
\ndated the  27-4-1970 and  11-4-1973 of the Orissa High Court
\nat Cuttack  in special\tjurisdiction Cases  Nos. 74 to 77 of
\n1968 and 70-72 of 1971 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
     Hardayal Hardy, and Sukumar Ghose, for the appellant in
\nCAs 449-454 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     Gobind Das, G. S. Chatterjee for the respondent.
\n     Sukumar Ghose,  for the  appellant in  CAs\t 888-890  of
\n1974.\n<\/p>\n
     M. C.  Bhandare, B.  Parthasarthi for the respondent in
\nCAs 888 and 889 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     Ex parte for respondent in appeal No. 890 of 1974.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     FAZAL ALI,\t J.-These  are\ttwo  groups  of\t appeals-one
\nconsisting of  six appeals by the firm Balabhagas Hulaschand
\ndealing in  jute. Civil\t Appeal No.  449\/71 arises  from the
\nJudgment of  the High Court in S.J.C. No. 41 of 1968 decreed
\non April  22, 1970  in respect\tof the\tassessment  for\t the
\nquarter ending\tJune 1960. The other five appeals are by the
\nsame firm in respect of the sales tax levied by the State of
\nOrissa for  the quarters  ending December,  March  1960\t and
\nDecember 1960  to June\t1961, decided by the judgment of the
\nHigh Court  in S.J.C.  Nos. 73-77  of 1968  dated April\t 27,
\n1970. As  all the  appeals involve  a common point they were
\nconsolidated and have been heard together.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals Nos. 888-890\/74 have been filed by the firm M\/s
\nKaluram Ramkaran in respect of the assessment of tax made by
\nthe State  of Orissa  for the  quarters ending September 30,
\n1961, June  30, 1962  and September  30, 1962. These appeals
\narise out  of the judgment of the High Court given in S.J.C.
\nNos. 70-72\/1971\t dated April  11, 1973.\t The High  Court  in
\nthese cases  followed its  previous judgment,  which is\t the
\nsubject-matter of  the six appeals mentioned above, and held
\nthat the  levy was valid. The points of law arising in these
\nappeals also  are identical  to the  points arising  in\t the
\nother six  appeals referred  to above,\tand in\tview of\t the
\ncommon points  of law  involved\t in  all  these\t appeals  we
\npropose to dispose them of by one common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  Balabhagas Hulaschand  is a firm dealing
\nin buying  and selling\tjute and  has  its  Head  Office  in
\nCalcutta. The firm used to purchase raw jute grown in Orissa
\nand send the same to its buyers in the State of West Bengal.
\nThe modus operandi was that after the
\n942<\/span>
\ngoods  were   received\tby  the\t appellant  firm  they\twere
\ndespatched in  bags  from  Cuttack  and\t Dhanmandal  railway
\nstations to  the Railway  Mills Siding in Calcutta. The bags
\nwere booked  in the  name of  the buyer\t mills through their
\nbroker. The  goods on arrival in the Mills Railway siding at
\nCalcutta were  inspected by  the buyer firm and if they were
\nfound to  be in accordance with the specifications mentioned
\nin the\tagreement of sale they were accepted. The appellants
\nin appeals  Nos. 888-890\/74  are a  firm dealing  in similar
\nbusiness with this difference that it has got its purchasing
\ncentre at  Kendupatna in the District of Cuttack, and it was
\nfrom Cuttack that the goods were despatched to the buyers in
\nWest Bengal.\n<\/p>\n
     The transaction  of sale  was entered  into  through  a
\nlicensed broker\t “East India Jute and Hessian Exchange Ltd.”
\nand  the  buyers  were\tthe  Managing  Agents  of  the\tfirm
\nKettlewell-Bullen &  Co., Ltd.,\t Calcutta. A letter has been
\nproduced by  the parties which appears at p. 24 of the Paper
\nBook which  forms the  contract or agreement of sale entered
\ninto between  the parties  in pursuance\t of which  the goods
\nwere despatched\t to the\t buyer firm  at Calcutta.  Under the
\ncontract the  responsibility  in  respect  of  the  quality,
\nmoisture, shortage  in weight and risk in transit lay on the
\nseller. It  is also not disputed that in all these appeals a
\nconcluded sale\ttakes place when the goods despatched in the
\nname of\t the Calcutta  firm were  ultimately accepted by the
\nsaid firm  and the  price of  the said goods was paid to the
\nappellants. On\tthe basis of these concluded transactions of
\nsale the Government of Orissa levied sales tax under s. 3(a)
\nof the\tCentral Sales  Tax Act,\t 1956, on the basis that the
\nsales were inter-State sales and, therefore, fell within the
\nambit of  that section.\t The assessing\tauthorities upto the
\nstage of  the  Tribunal\t negatived  the\t contention  of\t the
\nappellants that\t the sale  was merely an internal sale which
\ntook place  in the  State of  West Bengal  and not an inter-
\nState sale. Thereafter the appellants moved the Tribunal for
\nmaking a reference to the High Court of Orissa but failed to
\npersuade the  Tribunal to  make a  reference. The appellants
\nthen moved  the High  Court of\tOrissa under s. 24(3) of the
\nOrissa Sales  Tax Act  to direct  the  Tribunal\t to  make  a
\nstatement of  the case\tto the\tHigh Court.  Accordingly the
\nTribunal referred the following points for consideration:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(1) Did title  to the  goods pass in Orissa or in
\n\t       West Bengal?<\/p>\n
\t  (2)  Even if\ttitle in  the goods  passed in\tWest
\n\t       Bengal whether in the facts and circumstances
\n\t       of this\tcase,  the  transaction\t constituted
\n\t       “sale in the course of inter-State trade ?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     After  considering\t  the  entire\tevidence   and\t the
\ncircumstances and  the law  on the subject the High Court by
\nits judgment  dated April  22, 1970 negatived the plea taken
\nby the\tappellants and\theld that  although the title in the
\ngoods passed  in West  Bengal and the sale took place there,
\nsince the  sale occasioned  the movement  of the  goods from
\nOrissa to  West Bengal\tit was\tan  inter-State\t sale,\tand,
\ntherefore, it was clearly governed by s. 3(a) of the Central
\nSales Tax Act. Thereafter
\n943<\/span>
\nthe appellants\tmoved the  High Court, for granting leave to
\nappeal to  this\t Court,\t which\thaving\tbeen  rejected,\t the
\nappellants filed  an application  to this Court for grant of
\nspecial leave  to appeal  and the  same having been granted,
\nthese appeals have been set down for hearing before us.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Hardy learned counsel for the appellants in Appeals
\nNos.  449-454\/71  has  submitted  only\tone  point  for\t our
\nconsideration. He  has contended  that on the facts found it
\nwould appear  that the movement of goods from Orissa to West
\nBengal took  place in  pursuance of an agreement of sale and
\nnot in\tpursuance of  the sale\titself which  actually\ttook
\nplace in  West Bengal,\tand,  therefore,  the  sale  is\t not
\ncovered by s. 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the levy
\nmade by\t the State  of Orissa  was illegal.  Mr.  Ghose\t who
\nfollowed Mr.  Hardy and\t was appearing\tin appeals Nos. 888-
\n890\/74 further\tadded that  the agreements  in\tthe  instant
\ncases  were   merely  forward\tcontracts  in\trespect\t  of
\nunascertained and  future goods, and, therefore, fell beyond
\nthe ambit of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Gobind\t Das  appearing\t for  the  State  of  Orissa
\nrepelled the  contentions of  the appellants  and  submitted
\nthat the  circumstances clearly\t point out to the conclusion
\nthat  although\tthe  sale  took\t place\tin  West  Bengal  it
\nundoubtedly occasioned\tthe movement of goods from one State
\nto  another,  namely,  from  Orissa  to\t West  Bengal,\tand,
\ntherefore, were\t clearly covered  by s.\t 3(a) of the Central
\nSales Tax Act, and the High Court was right in rejecting the
\ncontention of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for both\tthe  parties  have  cited  a
\nnumber of  authorities of  this Court  and other High Courts
\nbefore us. But before going to the authorities we would like
\nto deal\t with the  scope and  ambit of the Central Sales Tax
\nAct and try to determine the incidents of a sale which would
\nattract the  provisions of  s. 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax
\nAct. Before,  however,\ttaking\tup  this  point\t it  may  be
\nnecessary to  mention the admitted circumstances in the case
\non which both the parties are agreed. They are-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (1)  that there  was an  agreement or\t contract of
\n\t       sale between  the  appellant  firms  and\t the
\n\t       Calcutta firms by which the appellants agreed
\n\t       to sell raw jute of certain specifications of
\n\t       weight and quality to the Calcutta firms;
\n\t  (2)  that at\tthe time  when the  contract of sale
\n\t       was entered  into, the  raw jute\t was not  in
\n\t       existence as it was being grown;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (3)  that after the goods were ready the same were
\n\t       booked in bags by the appellants not in their
\n\t       names but  in the names of the buyer firms in
\n\t       Calcutta;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (4)  that the\t goods were  booked from Cuttack and
\n\t       Dhanmandal railway  stations in Orissa to the
\n\t       Railway\tSidings\t  of  the   buyer  Mills  at
\n\t       Calcutta; and
\n944<\/span>
\n\t  (5)  that all\t the goods  which are  the  subject-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       matter of  the sales  tax levy  in all  these
\n\t       appeals\twere   ultimately  accepted  by\t the
\n\t       buyers at  Calcutta and a concluded sale took
\n\t       place at Calcutta in West Bengal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In  view   of  these  admitted\tcircumstances,\twe  have  to
\ndetermine the  legal position. To begin with it would appear
\nthat the  Central Sales\t Tax Act was passed in the year 1956
\nand  before  that  there  was  some  amount  of\t controversy
\nregarding the  authority which\twas to\tlevy tax  in case of
\ninter-State trade.  In The  Bengal Immunity  Company Ltd. v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The State  of Bihar  and Others(1),  Venkatarama Ayyar,\t J.,
\nspeaking for the Court quoted Rottschaefer on Constitutional
\nLaw (1939  Edition) where  sale in the course of inter-State
\ncommerce was defined thus: (p. 785):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The activities  of buying  and selling constitute
\n     inter-State  commerce   if\t  the\tcontracts   therefor
\n     contemplate or  necessarily  involve  the\tmovement  of
\n     goods in inter-State commerce.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The learned Judge also observed in that case:
\n\t  “A sale  could be  said to  be in  the  course  of
\n     inter-State trade\tonly if two conditions concur: (1) A
\n     sale of  goods, and (2) a transport of those goods from
\n     one State to another under the contract of sale. Unless
\n     both these\t conditions are\t satisfied, there  can be no
\n     sale in the course of inter-State trade.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This Court, therefore, accepted the ingredients of an inter-
\nState sale.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears\t that soon  after the decision in the Bengal
\nImmunity Company  Ltd’s case(1)\t was handed down it received
\nstatutory recognition in the shape of s. 3(a) of the Central
\nSales Tax Act, which was enacted by the Parliament to remove
\nany doubts or misgivings regarding the competence of a State
\nLegislature to\tlevy tax  on inter-State sales. Section 2(g)
\nof the Central Sales Tax Act defines “sale” thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “‘sale’,  with   its\tgrammatical  variations\t and
\n     cognate expressions,  means any transfer of property in
\n     goods by one person to another for cash or for deferred
\n     payment or\t for any  other valuable  consideration, and
\n     includes a\t transfer of  goods on\tthe hire-purchase or
\n     other system  of payment  by instalments,\tbut does not
\n     include a\tmortgage or  hypothecation of or a charge or
\n     pledge on goods;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Analysing this definition it would appear that it postulates
\nthe following conditions:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (i)  there must be a transfer of property in goods
\n\t       by one person to another;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
945<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  (ii) the transfer must be for cash or for deferred
\n\t       payment\t or    for   any    other   valuable
\n\t       consideration; and\n<\/p>\n
\t  (iii)that such  a transfer  includes a transfer of
\n\t       goods on the hire-purchase or other system or
\n\t       payment by instalments, etc.
\nIt would  thus be seen that the word ‘sale’ has been given a
\nvery wide  connotation by  the Parliament  so as  to include
\nwithin its  fold not  only sales  of goods which are usually
\nknown in common parlance but also transactions which legally
\ncannot be called sales, for instance, a transfer of goods on
\nthe hire-purchase system. It seems to us that the Parliament
\nwanted to  give the  widest amplitude to the word ‘sale’ and
\nthat is\t why, while  in s.  3 the words ‘sale of goods’ have
\nbeen used  in s.  4(2) clauses (a) & (b) which deal with the
\nsitus of  the sale  the words  ‘contract of  sale’ have been
\nused in\t the same  sense. In  other words,  the word  ‘sale’
\ndefined in  clause (g)\tof s.  2 and  used in s. 3 and other
\nsections is  wide enough  to include  not only\ta  concluded
\ncontract of  sale but  also a  contract or agreement of sale
\nprovided the  agreement of  sale stipulates that there was a
\ntransfer of  property or movement of goods. In The Sales Tax
\nOfficer, Pilibhit  v. Budh  Prakash Jai\t Prakash<\/a>(1)  quoting
\nBenjamin on  Sale, (8th\t Edn.) Venkatarama  Ayyara, J.,\t who
\nspoke for the Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  ” “The distinction between a sale and an agreement
\n     to sell  under Section  1 of  the English\tAct is\tthus
\n     stated by Benjamin on ‘Sale’, Eighth Edition, 1950:-
\n\t  “In order to constitute a sale there must be-
\n\t  (1)  An agreement  to sell,  by  which  alone\t the
\n\t       property does not pass; and
\n\t  (2)  an actual sale, by which the property passes.
\n\t  It will  be observed\tthat  the  definition  of  a
\n     contract of  sale above cited includes a mere agreement
\n     to sell as well as an actual sale.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  This distinction  between sales  and agreements to
\n     sell based\t upon the  passing of  the property  in\t the
\n     goods is  of great importance in determining the rights
\n     of parties under a contract.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It would  thus appear  that this  Court clearly held that an
\nagreement to  sell by  which the  property did\tnot actually
\npass was also an element of sale. Of course in that case the
\nCourt had  to decide  a different  point, namely, whether it
\nwas within  the competence of a State Legislature to tax not
\na sale\tbut even  an agreement\tto sell where an actual sale
\nhad  not  taken\t place.\t This  Court  held  that  the  State
\nLegislature was\t not competent to make such a levy under any
\nstatute passed by it
\n946<\/span>
\n     Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 runs thus:
\n\t  “3. A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to
\n     take place\t in  the  course  of  inter-State  trade  or
\n     commerce if the sale or purchase-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (a)  occasions the  movement\tof  goods  from\t one
\n\t       State to another; or\n<\/p>\n
\t  (b)  is effected  by a  transfer of  documents  of
\n\t       title to the goods during their movement from
\n\t       one State to another.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 3  consists of\ttwo clauses. But in the instant case
\nwe are\tnot concerned  with clause  (b) but only with clause\n<\/p>\n
(a). Analysing\tclause (a)  of s. 3 of the Central Sales Tax
\nAct it\twould  appear  that  before  s.\t 3  can\t apply,\t the
\nfollowing facts must be established:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (i)  that there  is a\t sale or  purchase of goods;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) that the sale occasions the movement of goods
\n\t       from one State to another.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If these  two conditions  are satisfied\t the sale becomes an
\ninter-State sale  on which  tax could  be levied  under\t the
\nCentral Sales Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The serious  question that\t arises for consideration in
\nthis case is whether or not the term ‘sale of goods’ as used
\nin s.  3 includes  an agreement to sell. It has already been
\npointed out  that an  agreement to  sell is  undoubtedly  an
\nelement of  sale. In  fact a  sale consists of three logical
\nsteps-(i) that\tthere is  an offer;  (ii) that\tthere is  an
\nagreement to sell when the offer is accepted; and (iii) that
\nin pursuance  of the  said agreement  a concluded sale takes
\nplace. When  the statute uses the words “sale or purchase of
\ngoods” it  automatically attracts  the definition of sale of
\ngoods as  given in s. 4 of the Sale of Goods Act. 1930 which
\nis a  statute passed  by the  same Parliament and is to some
\nextent in  pari materia\t to the Central Sales Tax Act so far
\nas transaction\tof sale\t is concerned. Section 4 of the Sale
\nof Goods Act runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “4. (1)  A contract of sale of goods is a contract
\n     where by the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the
\n     property in  goods to  the buyer for a price. There may
\n     be a  contract  of\t sale  between\tone  part-owner\t and
\n     another.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2)  A  contract   of\t sale  may  be\tabsolute  or
\n\t       conditional.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (3)  Where under  a contract\tof sale the property
\n     in the  goods is  transferred from\t the seller  to\t the
\n     buyer, the\t contract is  called a\tsale, but  where the
\n     transfer of  the property in the goods is to take place
\n     at\t a   future  time   or\tsubject\t to  some  condition
\n     thereafter to  be fulfilled,  the contract is called an
\n     agreement to sell.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (4)  An agreement  to sell becomes a sale when the
\n     time elapses or the conditions are fulfilled subject to
\n     which the property in the goods is to be transferred.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
947<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 4(1), therefore, clearly provides that a contract of
\nsale  of  goods\t includes  also\t an  agreement\tto  transfer
\nproperty in  goods to  the buyer for a price. The inevitable
\nconclusion that\t follows from  the combined  effect  of\t the
\ninterpretation of s. 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and s. 4
\nof the\tSale of\t Goods Act  is that  an agreement to sell is
\nalso an\t essential ingredient of sale provided it contains a
\nstipulation for\t transfer of  goods from  the seller  to the
\nbuyer. This  being the\tposition if  there is  a movement of
\ngoods from  one State  to another,  not in  pursuance of the
\nsale itself, but in pursuance of an agreement to sell, which
\nlater merges  into a  sale, the\t movement of  goods would be
\ndeemed to  have been  occasioned by the sale itself wherever
\nit takes  place. In  this view of the matter the question as
\nto whether  agreement to  sell was  a forward  contract or a
\ncontract in respect of unascertainable or future goods would
\nmake no\t difference for\t the simple  reason that when once a
\nsale takes  place, or  for that\t matter when the goods start
\nmoving from  one  State\t to  another  in  pursuance  of\t the
\nagreement to sell they cease to be future goods because they
\nare in\texistence and  they become  also ascertainable.\t The
\nargument of  the learned  counsel for the appellant is based
\non a  clear fallacy  because it\t seeks to draw an artificial
\ndistinction between  a contract\t of  sale  of  ascertainable
\ngoods and  a contract  of sale\tof unascertainable or future
\ngoods. This  argument fails  to take  note of  the fact that
\nwhen the movement of the goods start they shed the character
\nof either unascertained goods or future goods. Hence for the
\npurpose of  application of  s. 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax
\nAct the\t question whether the contract is a forward contract
\nor not makes no material difference.\n<\/p>\n
     Further more,  we can hardly conceive of any case where
\na sale\twould take  place  before  the\tmovement  of  goods.
\nNormally what  happens is  that there  is a contract between
\nthe two\t parties in  pursuance of  which the  goods move and
\nwhen they  are accepted and the price is paid the sale takes
\nplace. There  would, therefore,\t hardly, be any case where a
\nsale would take place even before the movement of the goods.
\nWe would  illustrate  our  point  of  view  by\tgiving\tsome
\nconcrete instances:\n<\/p>\n
     Case No. I-A is a dealer in goods in State X and enters
\ninto an\t agreement to  sell his\t goods to  in  State  X.  In
\npursuance of the agreement A sends the goods from State X to
\nState Y\t by booking  the goods\tin the\tname of B. In such a
\ncase it is obvious that the sale is preceded by the movement
\nof the goods and the movement of goods being in pursuance of
\na contract  which eventually merges into a sale the movement
\nmust be\t deemed to  be occasioned  by the  sale. The present
\ncase clearly falls within this category.\n<\/p>\n
     Case No.  II.-A who  is a\tdealer in  State X agrees to
\nsell goods to B but he books the goods from State X to State
\nY in  his own  name and\t his agent  in State  Y receives the
\ngoods on  behalf of A. Thereafter the goods are delivered to
\nB in  State Y  and if  B accepts them a sale takes place. It
\nwill be\t seen that  in this  case the  movement of  goods is
\nneither in  pursuance of  the agreement\t to sell  nor in the
\nmovement occasioned  by the  sale. The\tseller himself takes
\nthe goods to
\n948<\/span>
\nState Y and sells the goods there. This is therefore, purely
\nan internal  sale which\t takes place  in State\tY and  falls
\nbeyond the  purview of\ts. 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act
\nnot being an inter-State sale.\n<\/p>\n
     Case No.  III-B a purchaser in State Y comes to State X
\nand purchases  the goods  and pays  the price thereof. After
\nhaving purchased  the goods  he then  books the\t goods\tfrom
\nState X\t to State  Y in\t his own  name. This  is also a case
\nwhere the sale is purely an internal sale having taken place
\nin State  X and\t the movement  of goods is not occasioned by
\nthe sale  but takes place after the property is purchased by
\nB and becomes his property.\n<\/p>\n
     Generally these  are the  only type  of cases  that can
\noccur in  the day  to day  commercial transactions.  It\t is,
\ntherefore, manifest  that there\t can hardly  be a case where
\nonce a\tsale takes  place the  movement is subsequent to the
\nsale. Mr.  Hardy was  unable to cite a single instance where
\nsuch a\tcontingency could arise and he accordingly submitted
\nwith his  usual fairness  that if no such contingency arose,
\nthen s.\t 3(a) of  the Central  Sales Tax  Act will  have  no
\napplication and\t the levy  cannot be  made. We are unable to
\naccept this  contention because\t it is\twell settled  that a
\nstatutory provision  cannot be\tinterpreted in\ta way  which
\ndefeats the  very object  of the  Act. It  is  equally\twell
\nsettled\t that  the  Legislature\t does  not  waste  words  or
\nintroduce useless or redundant provisions. In Indian Chamber
\nof Commerce v. C.I.T. West Bengal II, Calcutta<\/a>(1) a Division
\nBench of  this Court to which I was also a party observed as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Section 2(xv)  must\tbe  interpreted\t in  such  a
\n     manner that  every word  is given\ta meaning and not to
\n     treat any expression as redundant or missing the accent
\n     of the amendatory phrase.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In view\t of these  circumstances we cannot hold that s. 3(a)
\nof the Central Sales Tax Act was redundant or would apply to
\ncontingencies  which   may  not\t happen\t at  all.  In  these
\ncircumstances, therefore, the conclusions at which we arrive
\nmay be summarised as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     (1) That  the word\t ‘sale’ appearing in s. 2(g) as also
\nin s.  3(a)  of\t the  Central  Sales  Tax  Act\tincludes  an
\nagreement to  sell also provided the said agreement contains
\na stipulation regarding passing of the property. Even in the
\nBengal\tImmunity  Company  Ltd’s  case\t(supra)\t this  Court
\nobserved thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “…. the  expression “contract  of sale”  in this
\n     context has  the same meaning as the words “contract of
\n     buying and\t selling” in  the definition  of inter-State
\n     commerce given  by Rottschaefer  in the passage already
\n     quoted, and they both refer to the bargain resulting in
\n     the sale  irrespective of whether it is in the stage of
\n     an agreement  to sell, or whether it is a sale in which
\n     title to the goods has passed to the purchaser. That is
\n     also the  definition of  “contract of  sale” in section
\n     5(1) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
949<\/span><\/p>\n
     (2) That  the following  conditions must  be  satisfied
\nbefore a  sale can  be\t said to take place in the course of
\ninter-State trade or commerce:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (i)\tthat there  is an  agreement to\t sell  which
\n\t       contains a  stipulation\t express or  implied
\n\t       regrading the  movement of the goods from one
\n\t       State to another;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) that  in pursuance  of the  said contract the
\n\t       goods in fact move form one State to another;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       and
\nIf these  conditions are satisfied then by virtue of s. 9 of
\nthe Central  Sales Tax\tAct it\tis the\tState from which the
\ngoods move which will be competent to levy the tax under the
\nprovision of  the Central Sales Tax Act. This proposition is
\nnot, and  cannot, be disputed by the learned counsel for the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
     Lastly another aspect of the matter is that in order to
\ndetermine whether  a sale  has taken  place in the course of
\ninter-State  trade   or\t commerce   the\t matter\t has  to  be
\napproached only\t after a  concluded sales  has\ttaken  place
\nbecause unless\tthe sale  takes place  or in other words the
\nagreement to  sell merges into a concluded sale the question
\nregarding the application of the   provisions of the Central
\nsales Tax  Act does  not arise at all because the  tax is on
\nsale and not on an agreement to sell or a forward contract.\n<\/p>\n
     Finally if\t all  these  conditions\t are  satisfied\t the
\nquestion whether  the agreement\t to sell  is in\t respect  of
\nascertained  or\t unascertained\tgoods,\texisting  or  future
\ngoods,\tmakes\tno  difference\twhatsoever  so\tfar  as\t the
\ninterpretation of  s. 3(a)  of the  Central Sales Tax Act is
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
     Applying these  principles\t let  us  see  what  is\t the
\nposition in  the present appeals? The letter at p. 24 of the
\nPaper Book  in Civil  Appeals Nos.  449-454\/71 which  may be
\nquoted in extenso runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “THE EAST INDIA JUTE & HESSIAN EXCHANGE LTD., CALCUTTA
\n     Transferable Specific Delivery Contract for Raw Jute.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t     Calcutts 1st April 1960
\nNo. S.G.M.\/16\/21
\nTo
\n     Messrs Balabhagas Hulaschand
\n     161\/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta.\n<\/p>\n
Dear Sirs,
\n     We\t have,\t subject  to   the  terms   and\t  conditions
\nhereinafter referred  to, this d ay sold to M\/s Fort Gloster
\nIndustries Ltd., New Mill
\n950<\/span>
\nM\/Agents M\/s  Kettlewell Bullen\t & Co.\tLtd., Cal.,  by your
\norder and  on your  account, the  following goods  which are
\nJute:-\n<\/p>\n
Crop 1959-1960\t.      .    .\t.    1400 (one thousand four
\nCuttuck; Dhanmandal .\t.   .\t hundred only) maunds of the
\n     White Jute.\t\t mark, assortment and
\n\t\t\t\t  quality  as per margin and
\n\t\t\t\t in sound dry storing
\n748 mds. Bot @ Rs.34\/- per md. . condition at the rate of:-
\n748 mds. Bot @ Rs.34\/- per md. . Rupees Thirty four only for
\n652 mds. Bot @ Rs.32\/- per md. . white B. Br. jute.-<\/p>\n
\n__________\n1400 mds.\t\t\t  Rupees thirty two only for\n<\/pre>\n
     Marks: B.H..   .\t.   .\t white Jute Bot. free to
\nJute Bales of:- .   .\t.   .\t buyer’s mill, siding and\/or
\n1 1\/2  to 5  mds. .   .\t  .   .\t   ghat. Weight guarantee at
\n\t\t\t\t buyers’ mill.\n<\/p>\n
Delivery to\t.   .\t.   .\t Fort Gloster, New Mill.
\nShipment or despatch during .\t April: May 1960.
\nPayment:-\t .   .\t .   .\t  90% Cash against documents
\n\t\t\t\t and rest on approval.\n<\/p>\n
Arbitration\t.   .\t.   .\t M\/s Bengal Chamber of
\n\t\t\t\t Commerce Industry L. M. D.\n<\/p>\n
Re-weighment\t .   .\t .   .\t  As per rules of M\/s Bengal
\n\t\t\t\t Chamber.\n<\/p>\n
Insurance\t.   .\t.   .\t M\/s. Marine & General
\n\t\t\t\t insurance Co. Ltd. Cal.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The foregoing  terms and  conditions as  well  as
\n     other terms  and conditions applicable to this contract
\n     are as per the terms and conditions of the transferable
\n     Specific Delivery\tContract for  Raw jute\tof the\tEast
\n     India Jute\t & Hessian  Exchange Ltd., Calcutta, and are
\n     subject to the Bye-Laws of that Exchange for trading in
\n     Transferable Specific  Delivery Contracts\tfor Raw Jute
\n     in force for the time being.\n<\/p>\n
     Brokerage at one per cent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t   Yours faithfully,
\n\t\t\t\t Shree Gopalji Sahay Meghraj
\n\t\t\t\t\t     Sd.\/- Illegible
\n\t\t\t\t\t     Licensed Broker
\n\t\tThe East India Jute & Hessian Exchange Ltd.”
\nIt is  conceded by  counsel for\t the  appellants  that\tthis
\nletter or other letters in identical terms form the basis of
\nthe contracts  of sale.\t The  first  part  of  the  contract
\nclearly mentions that the goods have been sold by the seller
\nto the\tbuyer. But of course that does not make the letter a
\nconcluded sale because the letter read as a whole would show
\nthat it is in respect of some future goods which have yet to
\nbe grown.  We are, however, unable to agree with the learned
\ncounsel for  the appellant  that this contract is in respect
\nof unascertained goods because the quality and the colour of
\nthe jute,  the weight,\tthe price, the markings etc. are all
\nmentioned in  the contract. Therefore the goods are no doubt
\nascertainable and  must be  according to  the specifications
\nmentioned in  the agreement.  This contract was entered into
\non April  1, 1960  and in  some appeals\t a little  later.  A
\nperusal of this contract
\n951<\/span>
\nalso shows  that the  appellant undertook  to send the goods
\nfrom Cuttack  to the buyers’ Mills siding in Calcutta and it
\nis not\tdisputed that  after the jute was ready it was to be
\nbooked in  bags from railway stations in Orissa to the Mills
\nSiding of  the buyer  in Calcutta.  It is,  therefore, clear
\nthat the  goods moved  in pursuance  of\t the  terms  of\t the
\nagreement  from\t the  seller  in  Orissa  to  the  buyer  in
\nCalcutta. It  is also  clear that  the movement of the goods
\nfrom Orissa  to West  Bengal forms  a clear  stipulation  or
\nincident of  the  agreement  to\t sell.\tThe  agreement\talso
\nprovides that there has been a transfer of property from the
\nseller to  the buyer  which is\tthe effect of the first para
\nreferred to  above. It\tis also\t not disputed that after the
\ngoods reached  Calcutta they  were finally  accepted by\t the
\nbuyers and  a concluded\t sale took  place in Calcutta in the
\nState of  West Bengal.\tIn view of these circumstances there
\ncan be\tno manner  of doubt  that the  sale  falls  squarely
\nwithin s.  3 (a)  of the Central Sales Tax Act and since the
\ngoods moved  from the  State of\t Orissa it  is the  State of
\nOrissa alone  which is\tcompetent to levy the tax under s. 9
\nof the Central Sales Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  now discuss  the various authorities cited by
\ncounsel for the parties to show that the view taken by us in
\nthis case  is amply  supported by a long catena of decisions
\nof this\t Court handed  down during the last two decades. The
\nlearned counsel\t for the  appellant heavily  relied  on\t the
\nobservations  made  by\tthe  Madras  High  Court  in  Cement
\nDistributors (P)  Ltd. v.  Deputy  Commercial  Tax  Officer,
\nLalgudi & Ors.(1):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Thus if  the goods  are unascertained, then until
\n     it is  appropriated to the contract by a known process,
\n     sale is not complete. Central sales tax is not leviable
\n     by the despatching State in such cases, notwithstanding
\n     inter-State  movement   of\t the   goods,  as  they\t are
\n     considered in section 4 as “out-of-State.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To begin  with, this case has no application to the facts of
\nthe  present  case,  because  the  decision  in\t the  Cement
\nDistributors (P)  Ltd.’s case  (supra) was  governed by\t the
\nprovisions of s. 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the High
\nCourt of  Madras came  to a finding that the sale was not at
\nall complete,  in view\tof the\tfact  that  the\t goods\twere
\nunascertained. Further\tmore, the  decision was given on the
\npeculiar facts\tin that case by which the branch at Calcutta
\nhad merely  been authorised by the State Trading Corporation
\nof India  Ltd to  receive the  goods despatched\t and  it  is
\ndoubtful whether there was a complete transaction of sale in
\nthat case. If however, that case is taken to be an authority
\nfor the\t proposition that  where the goods are unascertained
\nand even  if there  is an  inter-State movement of goods the
\nsale is not an inter-State sale, we find ourselves difficult
\nto agree  with that view which is not in consonance with our
\ninterpretation of  the provisions  of the  Central Sales Tax
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  then relied\t on another  decision of the
\nMadras High  Court in  Larsen and  Toubro  Ltd.\t Madras-2  &
\nothers v.  Joint Commercial  Tax Officer(2).  To begin with,
\nthis case appears to have been
\n952<\/span>
\noverruled by  this Court  in The  State of  Madras v.  N. K.
\nNataraja Mudaliar<\/a>(1)  on another  point.  Even\tso,  we\t are
\nunable to  see how  this case  is of  any assistance  to the
\nappellant. Veeraswami,\tJ., as he then was, speaking for the
\nCourt, observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The essential  tests of a sale or purchase in the
\n     course of\tinter-State trade, commerce and inter-course
\n     or import\tinto or export out of the territory of India
\n     are, (1)  whether there  is movement  of goods from one
\n     State to  another or  into or  out of  the territory of
\n     India, (2)\t whether such  movement is occasioned by the
\n     contract of  sale or  purchase  and  (3)  alternatively
\n     whether, during  such movement, the sale or purchase is
\n     effected by  transfer of  documents  of  title  to\t the
\n     goods.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The learned Judge also observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “A sale  could be  said to  be in  the  course  of
\n     inter-State trade\tonly if two conditions concur: (1) A
\n     sale of  goods, and (2) a transport of those goods from
\n     one State to another under the contract of sale. Unless
\n     both these\t conditions are\t satisfied, there  can be no
\n     sale in the course of inter State trade.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thus the  ratio laid  down  by\tthe  Court  is\tentirely  in
\nconsonance  with   the\tview   taken  by  us  regarding\t the
\nconditions of an inter-State sale.\n<\/p>\n
     Reliance was  also placed\ton Tata\t Iron and  Steel Co.
\nLtd. v.\t S.R. Sarkar  and Others<\/a>(2)  where Shah,  J.,  while
\ndelivering the\tmajority judgment  of the Court, observed as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In our  view, therefore,  within cl.\t (b) of s. 3
\n     are included  sales in  which  property  in  the  goods
\n     passes during  the movement of the goods from one State
\n     to another\t by transfer  of document  of title thereto:
\n     cl. (a) of s. 3 covers sales, other than those included
\n     in cl.  (b), in  which the\t movement of  goods from one
\n     State to  another\tis  the\t result\t of  a\tcovenant  or
\n     incident of  the contract\tof sale, and property in the
\n     goods passes in either State.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Sarkar, J.,  who gave  a  dissenting  judgment\tobserved  as
\nfollows: (pp. 407 & 408)
\n\t  “The\tquestion  then\tarises,\t when  does  a\tsale
\n     occasion the movement of goods sold ? It seems clear to
\n     us that  a sale  can occasion the movement of the goods
\n     sold only\twhen the  terms of the sale provide that the
\n     goods would  be moved; in other words, a sale occasions
\n     a movement\t of goods  when\t the  contract\tof  sale  so
\n     provides.”\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We have  then come  to this\tthat cl. (a) of s. 3
\n     contemplates  a   sale  where   the  contract  of\tsale
\n     occasions the movement of the goods sold and cl. (b), a
\n     sale where transfer of
\n953<\/span>
\n     property in the goods sold is effected by a transfer of
\n     documents of  title to  them. Of  course, in  the first
\n     case, the\tmovement of the goods must be from one State
\n     to another\t and in\t the second,  the document  of title
\n     must be transferred during such movement.”
\n     In State  Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of
\nMysore<\/a>(1) this Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Since the  permits with  which we  are  concerned
\n     provided that  the supply\thad to\tbe made\t from one or
\n     other factory  situate outside  Mysore,  the  contracts
\n     must be  deemed to\t have contained\t a covenant that the
\n     goods would  be supplied in Mysore from a place situate
\n     outside its borders. A sale under such a contract would
\n     clearly be\t an inter-State\t sale as defined in s. 3 (a)
\n     of the Central Sales Tax Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Similarly in  Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Assistant  Commissioner of\tCommercial Taxes  &  Anr.(2)
\nwhile describing  the incidents of an inter-State sale, this
\nCourt observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “A sale being transfer of property becomes taxable
\n     under s.  3(a) ‘if the movement of goods from one State
\n     to another\t is under  a covenant  or  incident  of\t the
\n     contract of sale’.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The same  view was\t taken in  a later  decision of this
\nCourt in  M\/s Kelvinator  of India  Ltd.  v.  The  State  of
\nHaryana<\/a>(3) where Khanna, J., speaking for the Court observed
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is  also plain  from the\tlanguage of  Section
\n     3(a) of  the Act  that the\t movement of  goods from one
\n     State to  another must be under the contract of sale. A
\n     movement of  goods which takes place independently of a
\n     contract of sale would not fall within the ambit of the
\n     above clause. Perusal of Section 3 (a) further makes it
\n     manifest  that   there  must  be  a  contract  of\tsale
\n     preceding the  movement of\t the goods from one State to
\n     another, and  the movement\t of goods  should have\tbeen
\n     caused by\tand be\tthe result of that contract of sale.
\n     If there was no contract of sale preceding the movement
\n     of goods, the movement can obviously be not ascribed to
\n     a contract of sale nor can it be said that the sale has
\n     occasioned the  movement of goods from one State to the
\n     other.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In that\t case, however, on the facts found by the High Court
\nthis Court  held that  the sale\t was not an inter-State sale
\nbut an internal sale which took place in Delhi. In that case
\nthere was no movement of the goods from one State to another
\nin pursuance  of the  contract of  sale. In other words, the
\nfacts of  this case  clearly fell  within Case No. II, which
\nhas been described by us, above.\n<\/p>\n
     To the same effect is the recent decision of this Court
\nin The\tState of  Tamil Nadu  v. The Cement Distributors (P)
\nLtd. and  Others<\/a>(4) in\twhich reliance\twas  placed  on\t the
\nearlier decision  of this  Court in  Tata Iron and Steel Co.
\nLtd. v. S. R. Sarkar & Ors.<\/a> (supra).\n<\/p>\n
954<\/span><\/p>\n
     In oil  India Ltd.\t v. The\t Superintendent of Taxes and
\nOthers (1),  while lucidly  describing the  incidents of  an
\ninter-State sale, Mathew, J., observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “This Court  has held in a number of cases that if
\n     the movement  of goods from one State to another is the
\n     result of\ta covenant or an incident of the contract of
\n     sale, then the sale is an inter-State sale. x x x x x x
\n\t  Even though Clause 7 of the supplemental agreement
\n     does not  expressly provide  for movement of the goods,
\n     it is  clear that the parties envisaged the movement of
\n     crude oil\tin pursuance  to the contract from the State
\n     of Assam  to the  State of\t Bihar. In  other words, the
\n     movement of  crude oil  from the  State of Assam to the
\n     State of Bihar was an incident of the contract of sale.
\n     No matter\tin which  State the  property in  the  goods
\n     passes, a sale which occasions “movement of goods” from
\n     one State\tto another is a sale in the course of inter-
\n     State trade.  The\tinter-State  movement  must  be\t the
\n     result of a covenant express or implied in the contract
\n     of sale  or an  incident of  the contract.\t It  is\t not
\n     necessary that  the sale  must precede  the inter-State
\n     movement in  order that  the sale may be deemed to have
\n     occasioned such  movement. It is also not necessary for
\n     a sale  to be  deemed to have taken place in the course
\n     of inter-State  trade or  commerce, that  the  covenant
\n     regarding inter-State movement must be specified in the
\n     contract itself. It would be enough if the movement was
\n     in pursuance  of and  incidental  to  the\tcontract  of
\n     sale.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We might mention here that the case cited above appears
\nto be  on all  fours with  the facts of the present case. In
\nthat case  also the  goods were supplied from Assam to Bihar
\nthrough the  pipelines in  Assam to  Barauni in\t Bihar. This
\nCourt observed that no matter in which State the property in
\ngoods passes the sale undoubtedly occasioned movement of the
\ngoods which  was sufficient  to bring  the case\t within\t the
\nambit of s. 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus  the\tauthorities  discussed\tabove  by  us  fully
\nsupport the  principles and  the ratio\tlaid down  by us. We
\nhave already  pointed out  that even  though the  sale\ttook
\nplace at Calcutta, as rightly found by the High Court, since
\nthe movement  of goods preceded the sale in pursuance of the
\ncontract of  sale which\t contained a  clear stipulation that
\nthe goods  were to  move from  Orissa to  Calcutta  in\tWest
\nBengal, the  movement of  goods was  occasioned by  the sale
\nitself which took place in Calcutta. In these circumstances,
\ntherefore, the\tHigh Court  was legally justified in holding
\nthat in\t all these appeals the cases were clearly covered by
\nthe provisions of s. 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefore, find no merit in these appeals which are
\naccordingly dismissed,\tbut in the circumstances without any
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n955<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1016, 1976 SCR (2) 939 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: BALABHAGAS HULASCHAND Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/12\/1975 BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN CITATION: 1976 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBalabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-19T10:25:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"40 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-19T10:25:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975\"},\"wordCount\":6615,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975\",\"name\":\"Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-19T10:25:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-19T10:25:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"40 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975","datePublished":"1975-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-19T10:25:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975"},"wordCount":6615,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975","name":"Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-19T10:25:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balabhagas-hulaschand-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-december-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211667","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211667"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211667\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}