( 1. ) PETITIONER is a purchaser of Tendu leaves (units) for the 1990 season, assails the recovery of Sales Tax under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Petitioner submits that as petitioner has purchased the leaves as per the tender notice and has taken the goods to State of Tamil Nadu, the M. P. General Sales Tax is not recoverable. Petitioner is liable to pay Central Sales Tax. The transaction is being that of inter-State sale.

( 2. ) IN the petition it is averred that the petitioner offered for the purchase of the unit No. 270 and unit No. 279 within the State of M. P. for purchase of Tendu leaves and also deposited the amount of royalty. The Madhya Pradesh State Minor Forest Produce (Trading and Development) Co-operative Federation Ltd. , is charging Sales Tax inter alia on royalty paid, collection charges and forest development cess. Petitioner submits that though auction is made in the State of M. P. , the collection charges bills are sent to the petitioners at their Madras address and it is an inter-State transaction and even if any Sales Tax is required to be paid it will be at 4% and not 16% as claimed as under the State Act. The action is without jurisdiction. Demand of Rs. 98,378/- as per demand notice (Annexure-C) is, thus, liable to be quashed.

( 3. ) IN the return filed by respondent No. 2 it is contended that the Sales Tax has been properly levied. It is not a case of inter-State sale. The royalty is a consideration for appointment of the petitioner as a purchaser. Royalty is a part of purchase price.

( 4. ) SHRI Sandeep Aole, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has strenuously submitted that it is a case of inter- State sale as the goods sent to the State of Tamil Nadu and while accepting the offer the address of the petitioner was known and his intention was to take the Tendu leaves to Tamil Nadu. The fact is not in dispute that the goods were taken out of the State of M. P. As such it is a case of inter-State sale, hence, the liability is only to pay under the Central Sales Tax Act. He has relied on the definition of interstate sale in Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and has submitted that if the sale or purchase action of moving goods from one State to another is enough to making an inter-State sale. He has relied upon various decisions to be referred later.

( 5. ) SHRI Ashok Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents, has submitted that it is a case of intra-Slate sale. There is nothing in the contract or the tender notice to show that the goods were agreed to be taken at the time of issue of tender notice or under the contract to the State of Tamil Nadu, hence, it cannot be said that if the petitioner has chosen to take the goods to State of Tamil Nadu then it is a case of inter-State sale. It was open to the petitioner to have sold it within the State of M. P. if petitioner on his own volition has taken it to the State of Tamil Nadu or any other State which cannot make it inter-State sale.

( 6. ) INTER-STATE sale is defined under Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 3 reads thus :-

"3. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.-- A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-Slate trade or commerce if the sale or purchase- (a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another; or

(b) is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another,"

( 7. ) IT is necessary that sale or purchase transaction must occasions the movement of goods from one State to another as required under Section 3 (a ). Clause (b) is not attracted to the facts of the instant case. In the tender notice there is no mention nor it was notified that the goods arc supposed to be put in inter-State sale. Petitioner had purchased it in the open auction in the contract of purchaser; it is not provided that goods have to be take