CORAMTHE HON’BLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICEandTHE HON’BLE MR v. The District Forest Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07..02..2005CORAMTHE HON’BLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICEandTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESANW.A.Nos.3195, 3196, 3240 and 3241 of 2004andW.P.Nos.2858, 14501 & 14502 of 2004 --------- Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd.,Bangalore – Pune Highway,Post Box No.5531,Bangalore – 560 055...Appellant in all the Writ Appeals & Writ Petitioner in W.P.Nos.2858, 14501 & 14502 of 2004Vs.1.The District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam Division, Sathyamangalam – 638 402.2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Maaligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.3. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Tamil Nadu, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ..Respondents in W.As. 3195 & 3196 and W.P.No.2858 of 2004. 4 The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Tamil Nadu, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 5. The District Forest Officer, Salem Division, Salem.6. The District Forest Officer, Tirupattur Division, Tirupattur (Vellore Division). ...Respondents in W.As. 3240 & 3241 & W.P.Nos.14501 & 14502/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the order passed in W.P.M.P.Nos. 3351, 3352, 17174 & 17175of 2004 in W.P.Nos. 2858, 14501 & 14502 of 2004. For Appellants …. Mr.C.Natarajan, Senior counselin W.A.Nos.123 to for Mr.N.Inbarajan 126 of 2005, 3240 &3241 of 2004 & 3195 & 3196 of 2004 and forpetitioners in W.P.Nos.10601 to 10604/04& W.P.No.2858 of 2004 For Respondents ::: Mr.T.Ayyasamy Spl.Govt.Pleader(Taxes) ::: Mr.V.S.Sethuraman Spl.Govt.Pleader(Forest)J U D G M E N TTHE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE These writ appeals and writ petition are being disposed of bya common judgment. Heard learned counsel for the parties andperused the records. The short question involved in this batch ofcases is whether the transactions under question are inter-statesales or intra-state sales. 2. The petitioner/appellant is a company registered under theIndian Companies Act, 1961 having its registered office and factoryat Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. It is a Government ofKarnataka undertaking, and it manufactures soap. One of the mainraw material for the manufacture of soap is sandal wood which isperiodically sold in auctions by the first and second respondentsviz., the District Forest Officer Sathyamangalam and the PrincipalChief Conservator of Forests, Saidapet, Chennai in the State ofTamil Nadu. The State of Tamil Nadu is insisting on chargingGeneral Sales Tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959in respect of the auction sales to the petitioners. Thepetitioner/appellant alleges that these sales are in the course ofinter state trade and commerce, and hence only chargeable to taxunder Section-8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, and not under theTamil Nadu Act.3. It is alleged that the stand of the respondents is illegaland contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissionerof Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti, 87 STC196 and Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Limited Vs. State of TamilNadu, 90 STC 1. It is alleged that the 3rd respondent – PrincipalCommissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai havinginitially and correctly taken the view that the petitioner is onlyeligible to pay CST has subsequently without notice directed thefirst respondent-District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam to chargesales tax on the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu General Sales TaxAct, 1959 placing reliance on the judgment of a learned singleJudge of this Court in W.A.Shah Enterprises (P) Limited Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ District Forest Officer, 129 STC 299. It is alleged that as thesales of the 1st respondent- District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalamto the petitioner are inter-State sales the action of therespondents is illegal. The petitioner has prayed for quashing ofthe Circular in Lr.No.Acts Cell-IV/48623/2002 dated 24.07.2003 ofthe 3rd respondent – Principal Commissioner and Commissioner ofCommercial Taxes, Chennai and for a direction that the respondentsshall only charge Central Sales Tax from the petitioner, and notgeneral sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-Company hasits factory at Bangalore and is engaged in the manufacture of soapsand detergents in the State of Karnataka. Sandalwood is requiredfor the use in the manufacture of soaps. Periodically, the 1strespondent - District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam used to issuesale notice for auction sale of sandalwood in Tamil Nadu which ispublished in the District Gazette. The sale is subject to sales taxbeing paid whereupon delivery is effected. Petitioner participatedin such auctions. For this purpose a power of attorney is given toa Senior Officer of the petitioner-Company to participate in theauction sale and to seek delivery, apply for transport permits, andfor movement of the goods to the petitioner’s factory. Accordingly,the petitioner bid in the auction sales in respect of the specificlots of sandalwood. The petitioner thereupon after securing theconfirmation of the sale from the 1st respondent - District ForestOfficer, Sathyamangalam obtained a transit pass in Form-41 readwith Rule 155 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The transit passauthorizes the entry of the sandalwood into the State of Karnatakaindicating that the sandalwood is brought in, the name of thepetitioner, number of quantity, marks, the mode of conveyance, thetime, authorized route of transport. The petitioner also takestransit form under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 indicating thepetitioner as consignor as well as the consignee for the transportof the sandalwood. The petitioner thereupon obtains a permit fromthe District Forest Officer, Salem after the proceeds have beenpaid and marks placed on the selected bags. These formalities haveto be undergone as soon as the sandalwood is notified, and thesale, possession and transit of sandalwood is strictly controlledunder the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, as well as the Karnataka ForestAct. Under Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1967no person can import or export sandalwood into or from Tamil Naduunless the wood is accompanied by a permit referred to in Rule 4 orby a permit referred to in Rule 6 and unless the sandalwood bearsthe mark of the Government of origin with property mark. It isalleged by the petitioner that the moment the sale is confirmed,the proceeds are remitted whereupon the proceedings are issued fordelivery to be effected by the 1st respondent - District ForestOfficer, Sathyamangalam for onward movement as contemplated by thecumulative circumstances referred to above. It is alleged that atall material times the 1st respondent - District Forest Officer,Sathyamangalam was instructed by the 3rd respondent – PrincipalCommissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai tocharge Central Sales Tax. Accordingly, the petitioner was issuingC-Forms and transporting the goods immediately on delivery into theState of Karnataka. However, subsequently the petitioner received acommunication of the 3rd respondent – Principal Commissioner andCommissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai dated 24.07.2003 stating https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the sales were local sales as per the judgment of this Courtreported in W.A.Shah Enterprises (P) Limited Vs. District ForestOfficer, (Supra). The local sales attract sales tax at 12% whereasthe inter-State sales attract tax at 4% under Section 8(1) of theCentral Sales Tax Act, 1956 because the petitioner is a registereddealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In view of the abovedevelopment the petitioner was compelled to pay tax at 12% withsurcharge in respect of the sale held on 11.09.2003. The petitionerremitted the amount under protest by letter dated 14.09.2003because delivery was refused unless tax under the Tamil NaduGeneral Sales Tax Act, 1959 was remitted. The petitioner furtheralleged that being a manufacturer of soap and detergents in theState of Karnataka, it purchases the sandalwood solely for thepurpose of transport and consumption in its factory at Bangalore.Hence, the purchase is in the course of inter-State trade andcommerce. It is alleged that the petitioner participated in theauction through its senior officer for the purpose of bidding forsandalwood, taking delivery in Tamil Nadu and transporting it intoKarnataka, and the sale and movement are integral withoutpossibility of diversion. It is further alleged that the petitionerbid only for the purpose of consumption in the State of Karnatakaand the very delivery and transportation is covered by theTransport Pass in Form-41 issued under Rule 155 of the KarnatakaForest Rules, 1969, Form-39 issued under the Karnataka Sales TaxAct, 1957 and permit in Form-I issued by the 1st respondent -District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam or his delegates, the goodsbeing sold and transported through a designated route to adestination within a specified time for which proof has to besubmitted to the authorities, and the delivery and transportationis statutorily governed. It is alleged that the petitioner neithercontemplates, nor effects diversion of the goods purchased forconsumption in the State of Karnataka. 5. It is further alleged that the following circumstancesindicate that the purchase of the sandalwood and its transportationinto the State of Karnataka are part and parcel of the sametransaction and arise out of the compulsion in the course oftransaction: -(i)the petitioner, who is an auction buyer, has itsfactory for use and consumption of sandalwood only inthe State of Karnataka. The petitioner has no place ofbusiness in the State of Tamil Nadu; (ii)the petitioner even while participating in the auctionobtained and submitted an Income Tax Certificate underthe proviso to Section 206(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 from its Income tax authority and submitted thesame to the District Forest Officer, so that a 15%debit on the purchase consideration is avoided. ThatCertificate submitted in Form 27C read with Rule 37Ccertifies that the products are purchased for thepurpose of manufacture and authorizing the DistrictForest Officer not to collect tax at source. Non-recovery of income tax at source while effecting fullpayment to secure a delivery order of the sellerimpresses a requisite obligation on the petitioner to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transport the goods to its factory in Karnataka formanufacture;(iii)Sections 35 and 36 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and theTamil Nadu Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1967 (Rules 3 and4) strictly control the movement. They providecertificate for the transit indicating the route oftransit, and the destination in Karnataka. Hence, thesandalwood cannot be diverted.(iv)The petitioner applied for and secured Import Permitunder the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, specifying thetime within which, and the route by which the goodssold have to be imported into Karnataka. Hence, alsothe sandalwood cannot be diverted.(v)The Delivery Order of the District Officer, the transitand transportation from the depot in Tamil Nadu to thefactory in Karnataka are immediate and interlinked bythe route of transit indicated in the permit.6. Mr.C.Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioner/appellant has strongly relied on the decision of theSupreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. Bakhtawar LalKailash Chand Arhti, 87 STC 196. In that case, the facts were thatthe Ex.U.P. principals contracted with the assesse (a commissionagent) that he should purchase goods on their behalf in U.P. andtransport them to a destination outside U.P on payment of acommission. The goods were sent to the Ex.U.P. principals underfulfillment of the contract. In our opinion this decision isclearly distinguishable because in the present case it is thepetitioner/appellant who himself has purchased the goods in theState of Tamil Nadu through its officers. Having purchased thegoods in the auction sale in Tamil Nadu, the petitioner was underno legal obligation to send the goods to the State of Karnataka.Surely, a person cannot be said to be under any legal obligation tohimself. On the other hand, in the decision of the Supreme Court inCommissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash ChandArhti, 87 STC 196 (supra) the commission agents (the assessees)were under a contractual obligation to transport the goods whichthey purchased in U.P to their Ex.U.P. principals. Hence, theaforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is clearly distinguishable,because in the present case we find that the petitioner was underno legal obligation (whether express or implied, and whetherstatutory, contractual or otherwise) to export the sandalwood toKarnataka. The export to Karnataka by the petitioner was purelyvoluntary, and not under any obligation of any kind, express orimplied.7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/appellantthen relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Co-operativeSugars (Chittur) Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 90 STC 1. In ouropinion that decision is also distinguishable. The said decisionrelated to the purchase of sugarcane in Tamil Nadu by the appellanttherein who had a sugar factory in Kerala. It may be mentioned thatunder the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966, ordinarily sugarcanecannot be transported except to the factory lying within thereserved area. The system of supply of sugarcane to the sugarfactories, which is prevalent in most parts of the country, is thatthe Government declares a certain area lying within a certain https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ radius of a sugar factory as a reserved area. The sugarcane growerswithin that reserved area can sell sugarcane only to that factorywhich is inside the reserved area, and the sugar factory can onlypurchase cane from the cane growers within that reserved area.However, it appears that sugarcane was not available in KeralaState. Hence, the Governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu entered intoan agreement pursuant to which the Government of Tamil Nadu issueda G.O. permitting the appellant therein to purchase sugarcane fromcertain areas in Coimbatore and Pollachi Taluks in Tamil Nadu. Theappellant was permitted to purchase sugarcane in Coimbatore andPollachi Taluks only with a view to and exclusively for the purposeof transporting it to its factory in Kerala. The movement of thegoods from Tamil Nadu to Kerala was occasioned by the sale by thefarmers or by the purchase by the appellant. Thus, it is evidentfrom the facts of the above case that the appellant was permittedto purchase sugarcane in Coimbatore and Pollachi Taluks in TamilNadu only with a view to and exclusively for the purpose oftransporting it to its factory in Kerala. This was because of theG.O. issued by the Tamil Nadu Government in pursuance of itsagreement with the Kerala Government. Thus, the aforesaid decisionof the Supreme Court was on its own peculiar facts, and hence it isclearly distinguishable. 8. In our opinion, the sales in question in the present bunchof cases cannot be regarded as inter-State sales. No doubt, it isnot necessary that the contract of sale must expressely provide forthe movement of the goods to another State, as held in Co-operativeSugars (Chittur) Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 90 STC 1 (supra).However, as held in the Constitution Bench decision of the SupremeCourt in State of A.P. Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.,and Others, (2002) 5 SCC 203 (vide Para-24) the contract of salemust at least impliedly provide for the movement of the goods fromone State to another. In the aforesaid Constitutional Benchdecision the Supreme Court has observed: - “It is well settled by a catena of decisions ofthis Court that a sale in the course of inter-State trade has three essential ingredients:(i)there must be a contract of sale,incorporating a stipulation, express orimplied, regarding inter-State movement ofgoods;(ii)the goods must actually move from one State toanother, pursuant to such contract of sale,the sale being the proximate cause ofmovement;(iii)such movement of goods must be from one Stateto another State where the sale concludes. Itfollows as a necessary corollary of theseprinciples that a movement of goods, whichtakes place independently of a contract ofsale, would not fall within the meaning ofinter-State sale. In other words, if there isno contract of sale preceding the movement ofgoods, obviously the movement cannot beattributed to the contract of sale. Similarly,if the transaction of sale stands completed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ within the State and the movement of goodstakes place thereafter, it would obviously beindependently of the contract of sale andnecessarily by or on behalf of the purchaseralone and, therefore, the transaction wouldnot be having an inter-State element.Precedents are legion; we may briefly refer tosome of them. In English Electric Co. of IndiaLtd., Vs. CTO, (1976) 4 SCC 460 this Courtheld that when the movement of the goods fromone State to another is an incident of thecontract, it is a sale in the course of inter-State sale and it does not matter which is theState in which the property passes. What isdecisive is whether the sale is one whichoccasions the movement of goods from one Stateto another. In Union of India Vs. K.G.Khoslaand Co. Ltd. (1979) 2 SCC 242 it was observedthat a sale would be an inter-State sale evenif the contract of sale does not itselfprovide for the movement of goods from oneState to another provided, however, that suchmovement was the result of a covenant in thecontract of sale or was an incident of thecontract. Similar view was expressed in SahneySteel and Press Works Ltd., Vs. CTO, (1985) 4SCC 173. In Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., Vs.Regional Asstt. CST, (1976) 4 SCC 124 afterreferring to Balabhagas Hulaschand Vs. Stateof Orissa, (1976) 2 SCC 44 it was observedthat so far as Section 3(a) of the CST Act isconcerned, there is no distinction betweenunascertained or future goods and goods whichare already in existence, if at the time whenthe sale takes place these goods have comeinto actual existence.”9. Thus, as held in the above decision, the very firstrequirement for regarding a sale as an inter state is that thecontract of sale must incorporate a stipulation, express orimplied, regarding inter-state movement of goods. In the presentcase, we do not find any such stipulation, express or implied,providing for inter-state movement of goods. Hence the sales inquestion do not fulful the very first requirement, as laid down inthe Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in State ofA.P v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (supra). 10. No doubt in Union of India Vs. K.G.Khosla and Co. Ltd.,(1979) 2 SCC 242 the Supreme Court observed that a sale would be aninter-State sale even if the contract of sale does not itselfprovide for the movement of the goods from one State to another,provided, however, such movement was a result of a covenant in thecontract of sale or was an incidence of the contract. In thepresent case, it cannot even be said that the movement of goodsfrom Tamil Nadu to Karnataka was a result of any implied covenantin the contract of the sale or was an incidence of the contract. Inour opinion, the movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wholly independent of the contract of sale. The Tamil NaduGovernment did not enter into any covenant, express or implied,with the petitioner that after the petitioner purchases thesandalwood in the auction sale, he will have to transport the goodsto Karnataka. There was also no statutory rule or Governmentnotification requiring the petitioner to export the goods toKarnataka after purchasing them at the auction sale.11. It may be noted that the auction sale of sandalwood in theState of Tamil Nadu was done by the State of Tamil Nadu. The StateGovernment would only be interested in getting the highest pricefor the sandalwood, and it would hardly be concerned with thequestion whether the sandalwood after the auction sale is consumedwithin the State of Tamil Nadu or goes to some other State. Hence,it cannot be said even by implication that the State of Tamil Naduhad entered into any covenant with the petitioner/appellant fortransportation of the sandalwood to Karnataka after the sale. Themovement of goods from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka can also not be saidto be an incidence of the auction sale, rather the auction sale hadnothing to do with the transport of the goods to Karnataka. In theauction sales (for all we know) there may have been bidders whowanted to purchase the sandalwood for use within the State of TamilNadu and not for transport outside the State. The State Governmentauthorities would hardly be interested in the question whether thesandalwood after purchase in the auction sale is sent to Karnatakaor U.P or some other State, or remains within Tamil Nadu. Hence, itcannot be said that the movement of goods to Karnataka was anincidence of the auction sale. In our opinion, such movement waswholly independent of the auction sale. Thus, it cannot be saidthat it was an inter-State sale. 12. The decision of the Supreme Court in South India ViscoseLtd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1981 SC 1604 is in our opiniondistinguishable. In paragraph-11 of the said decision, the SupremeCourt observed: -“ In the instant case, there is clear evidenceof the existence of a prior contract of sale asper terms of the allocation card. The fact thatactual sale pursuant to the said contract ofsale had taken place subsequently does notmilitate against the transaction being treatedas an inter-State sale under Sec.3 (a) of theAct, since the movement of the goods deliveredto the buyer was occasioned by the contract ofsale brought into existence under the terms ofthe allocation card” The Supreme Court in the above decision observed that the goodshaving been dispatched from one State to another pursuant to thecontract of sale, which came into existence directly between theappellant and the buyer a few days after the date of allocation ofthe card, the sale was an inter-State sale. The Supreme Courtobserved that there has to be a conceivable link between thecontract of sale and the movement of goods from one State toanother in order to discharge the obligation under the contract ofsale to make it an inter-State sale. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. In the present case, there is no conceivable legal linkbetween the auction sale in Tamil Nadu and the movement of goods toKarnataka. The said movement was purely voluntary at the option ofthe petitioner and not under any legal obligation. Hence, thedecision in South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra)is clearly distinguishable. 14. As regards the decision in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v.Union of India (Air 1981 SC 446), this decision too, in ouropinion, is distinguishable. In the above case, the petitionercorporation had a refinery at Barauni in the State of Bihar andalso a depot at Panki, Kanpur in U.P. An agreement was entered intobetween the petitioner and Indian Explosives Limited, who had afactory at Panki, Kanpur in U.P where it manufactures ureafertilizers in terms of which, the petitioner were to sell toIndian Explosives the entire quantity of naphtha required for thefertilizer factory. Under clause-4 of the said agreement, theseller was to make supply of naphtha to the buyer from its refineryat Barauni. Thus the source of supply was the refinery at Barauniin Bihar and the destination was the buyer’s factory at Kanpur.This one clause alone was sufficient to prove that the sales inquestion were inter-State sales.15. It was contended by the petitioner in the above case thatthe sales were local sales and not inter-State sales, because thesales were made on the buyer’s indents in writing addressed to theseller (the petitioner) at its Kanpur branch and not at itsrefinery at Barauni. It was alleged that the supplies were madefrom the petitioner’s storage at Kanpur to the fifth respondent’sfactory also at Kanpur. However, this contention of the petitionerwas rejected and it was held by the Supreme Court that the salesunder the agreement are not possible without inter-State movementof naphtha. The arrangement regarding the storage facility was onlyfor operational convenience and it was only a mechanism devised tofacilitate the transfer of naphtha through the seller’s pipelineto their depot at Kanpur and from there to the buyer’s factory atKanpur.16. Thus, the facts of the above case clearly show that thesaid decision is distinguishable and has no application to thefacts of the present case. In the present case, the auction salesin Tamil Nadu were wholly independent of the subsequent movement ofsandalwood to Karnataka. 17. On the other hand, the decision of the Constitution Benchof the Supreme Court in T.E. & L.Co. v. Asst.Commr., CommercialTaxes (AIR 1970 SC 1281) is more apposite to the facts of thepresent case. In the above decision the facts of the case were thatvehicles was moved from the factory of the appellant to variousstock yards in different States, but the movement of vehicles fromthe site of works to the stock yards was not occasioned by anycovenant or incident of the contract of sale. In fact, thecompletion of the sales to the dealers did not take place at theJamshedpur factory, but was completed at the stock yard. There wasnothing to show that the movement of goods from the Jamshedpurfactory of the appellant to the stock yard was in pursuance of somefirm order on behalf of a customer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. In Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar Vs. Bhag SinghMilkha Singh, (1974) Vol.34 STC 535 a Division Bench of the PatnaHigh Court observed: - “It must be held that what is of importance tomake the sale as one in the course inter-Statetrade and commerce is that there must be anobligation to transport the goods outside theState – the obligation may be of the seller or thebuyer – and it may arise by reason of statute,contract between the parties, or from mutualunderstanding or agreement between them or evenfrom the nature of the transaction which linkedthe sale to such transportation. Such anobligation may be imposed expressly under thecontract itself or impliedly by a mutualunderstanding. It is not necessary that in allcases there must be pieces of direct evidenceshowing such obligation in a written contract ororal agreement. Such obligations are inferablefrom circumstantial evidence also.”19. In the present case, it cannot be said that the petitionerwas under any obligation of any nature to transport the sandalwoodafter purchase in Tamil Nadu to the State of Karnataka. No doubt,as held by the Supreme Court in the above decision, the obligationmay be imposed either expressly by the contract or impliedly by amutual understanding. However, in this case, even by implication itcannot be said that the petitioner was under any obligation totransport the goods from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka. The goods werepurchased by the petitioner itself in Tamil Nadu (through itsOfficers) and surely it cannot be said that the petitioner wasunder obligation to itself to transport the goods from Tamil Naduto Karnataka. “A” can be under obligation to “B”, but surely “A”cannot be under an obligation to “A” himself. After havingpurchased the sandalwood in Tamil Nadu, the petitioner could dowhatever he liked with it, and he was under no obligation totransport it to Karnataka, and that he did so was of his own choiceand volition and not under any obligation. No doubt, the petitionerobtained necessary permits under the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu Actsand obtained the necessary income-tax certificate, but that was allvoluntary and of its own choice. If the petitioner had not chosento transport the goods to Karnataka it may have suffered from thebusiness point of view as it would not get the necessary rawmaterials for its factory in Bangalore, but that does not amount tosaying that it was under any legal obligation, either express orimplied, to transport the goods to Karnataka. Hence, the auctionsales cannot be called inter-State sales. 20. In view of the above, W.A.Nos.3195, 3196, 3240 & 3241 of2004 and W.P.No.2858 of 2004 are dismissed. Since W.A.Nos. 3240 &3241 of 2004 arise out of the interlocutory orders inW.P.M.P.Nos.17174 & 17175 of 2004 in W.P.Nos.14501 of 14502 of2004, and in view of the fact that W.P.Nos.14501 of 14502 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ involve identical questions of fact and law, as in W.A.Nos.3240 &3241 of 2004 and W.P.No.2858 of 2004, with the consent of theparties, W.P.Nos.14501 & 14502 of 2004 are also called and heard,and for the aforesaid reasons they are dismissed. sm/pvSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarCopy to:1.The District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam Division, Sathyamangalam – 638 402.2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Maaligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.3. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Tamil Nadu, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.4. The District Forest Officer, Salem Division, Salem.5. The District Forest Officer, Tirupattur Division, Tirupattur (Vellore Division). + 4 ccs to Mr.N.Inbarajan, Advocate SR 5180+ 1 ccs to Spl.Govt.Pleader (Taxes) SR 5391Judgmentin W.A.Nos.3195, 3196, 3240and 3241 of 2004 andW.P.Nos.2858 of 2004 14501 & 14502/04MDR(CO)SR/22.2.2005