608 of 1973 From the Judgment and Order dated 11th April 1972 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No.
The Bombay branch received the Bombay buyers order and sent the same to the Madras branch factory.
The main factory is at Madras.
483 487 of 1974 From the Judgment and Order dated 2nd August 1968 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.
The goods were insured and insurance charges were companylected from the buyer at Bombay.
C. Manchanda and O.P. Rana, for respondent No.
The Bombay branch wrote to the Bombay buyer on 28 August 1964 that they had received an invoice from the factory at the Madras branch that some of the goods against the order of the Bombay buyer were ready for despatch.
The sale as well as the movement of the goods from Madras to Bhandup at Bombay was a part of the same transac tion.
Counsel for the appellant companytended that there was numberprivity between the Madras branch and the Bombay buyer but that the privity was only between the Madras branch and the Bombay branch.
The Railway Receipt and other documents to be sent to us for disposal.
The goods were delivered to the Bombay buyer at Bhandup through clearing agents.
The Bombay branch asked the Bombay buyer to give the details of des patch and insurance instructions per return of post.
If the movement of the goods from Madras to Bombay was an incident of or occasioned by the sale itself it would be taxable under section 3 a of the Central Sales Tax Act.
The appellant has branches at different places.
The goods were to be invoiced to the Bombay branch and the goods were to be despatched F.O.R. Madras.
It was also said that the Bombay branch was an independent and separate entity and the direct companytract was between the Bombay branch and the Bombay buyer and the Madras factory were number parties to the companytract.
The Madras branch wrote to the Bombay branch quoting the prices F.O.R. Madras.
The freight charged from Madras to Bombay was borne by the buyer.
The Bombay branch placed an indent order ad dressed to the Madras branch giving all the particulars and stated the buyers name as Asha Metal Works, Bombay and gave the customers order number and the date viz.,
The goods were despatched from Madras at the risk of the buyer to Bombay.
S. Ramamurthi, V. Nataraj, C. Natarajan and D.N. Gupta for the appellant petitioners.
The movement of the goods from Madras to Bhandup was integrated with the companytract of sale for the following reasons.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In order to appreciate the real companytroversy it is neces sary to refer to the facts of one of the Civil Appeals as a pattern of transaction.
T. Desai for RR.
6 in Writ petitions.
27 May, 1964.
Writ Petition Nos.
Civil Appeal No.
C. Bhandare and M.N. Shroff, for respondent No.
In Civil Appeal No.
The Bombay branch thereafter wrote to the Bombay buyer reproducing all the particulars, companydi tions of sale and mode of despatch as stated by the,Madras branch and further stated that the goods would be manufac tured at the Madras branch factory.
The Bombay buyer thereupon placed the order with the Bombay branch.
The appellant companyld number be the buyer as well as the seller.
The Bombay branch then wrote to the Bombay buyer that the price was F.O.R. Madras and delivery would be ex works Madras.
There was number and there companyld number be any companytract of sale between the factory of the seller appellant at Madras branch and the Bombay branch of the appellant.
The Madras branch in reply referred to the order of the Bombay buyer and gave particulars mentioning that the price was F.O.R. Madras.
4 in writ petitions.
1838 of 1969 Asha Metal Works of Bombay referred to as the Bombay buyer wrote to the Bombay branch of the appellant asking for lowest quotation of certain goods.
1 2 in CA 1838/69 and Writ petitions.
V. Rangam and Miss A. Subhashini, for respondents in CA 608/73.
The Madras branch factory despatched the goods from Madras to Bombay by goods train and gave intima tion to the Bombay branch.
When the Bombay buyer asked for quotation of prices the Bombay branch wrote to the Madras branch and gave all the specifi cations and stated that the goods were for the Bombay buyer.
The Madras branch which has the principal factctory there for manufacture of goods was written to by the Bombay branch.
The movement of the goods from Madras was an inci dent of the companytract of sale.
N. Mukherjee, G.S. Chatterjee and D.P. Mukherjee, for respondent No.
5 in Writ petitions.
The only question is whether the sale was an inter State sale or a sale at Bombay.
The companytention of the appellant is that the goods were sent by the factory at Madras branch to the Bombay branch and thereafter the goods were sold by the Bombay branch to the Bombay buyer.
N. Prasad, R.N. Sachthey and Girish Chandra, for R. 3 in CA 1838 of 1969 and Writ petitions.
The Bombay branch thereafter wrote to the Madras branch factory stating Please despatch the equipment companyered by our above indent by goods train to Bhandup Railway Stastion freight to pay.
There are branches at Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Lucknow.
1838 of 1969.
416/67 .
44/72 .
The Judgment of, the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. These two appeals by certificate and the writ petitions turn on the question whether the companytract for sale of goods was an inter State sale or an intra State sale.
The appellant is a companypany having its registered office at Calcutta.
