V. Ramaswami, J.
1. The respondent-assessee was originally granted in the assessment order exemption on the purchase of cotton from Messrs. Rallis India Limited, Coimbatore, to an extent of Rs. 1,22,906.20. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirumayam, initiated proceedings to revise the assessment on the ground that the said turnover which is covered by two transactions dated 23rd August, 1960, are local purchases and as such liable to be included in the taxable turnover. After considering the objections filed by the assessee the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer confirmed his earlier view and held that they were not inter-State purchases. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal took the view that the transactions are inter-State purchases and that, therefore, not liable to be taxed.
2. The relevant contract entered into between the respondent-assessee and the Rallis India Limited, Coimbatore, who are within the State are to the following effect : Rallis India Limited agreed to sell 100 bales of cotton in full pressed bales each weighing about 400 lbs. at price of Rs. 1,080 per candy of 784 lbs. net f. o. r. Namanasamudram, which is within the State of Madras. The cotton shall be forwarded/delivered through wagons at the earliest possible despatch. The payment of the price was agreed to be 90 per cent against the railway receipt at Namanasamudram, and the balance of 10 per cent or difference between the sellers' invoice weights and the weights at destination to be paid on the presentation of the sellers' final invoice. The goods are described as New Crop Laxmi Cotton equal to sample No. CB 209. There are number of other terms relating to arbitration and delay in delivery of the goods or the buyers failing to pay and take delivery of the goods. This contract is entered into between the parties on 12th April, 1960, within the State of Madras. It is seen from this contract that there was no term relating to the place wherefrom the goods will have to be moved nor was there any indication that the goods agreed to be sold were expected to be imported from any other out-of-State. There is no evidence either to show that the parties at the time of the contract contemplated that the goods from out-of-State place should be moved and supplied to the purchaser in order to fulfil its contract. If in fact in order to fulfil the contract the seller had moved the goods from out-of-State places, it will not by itself make the contract as one which contemplated the movement of goods from outside the State. As per the terms of the contract it is open to the seller either to procure the goods locally and supply to the purchaser or purchase it or bring it from any outside place. Since neither the contract in terms contemplate the movement of goods from one State to another nor there is any evidence that the parties contemplated the movement of goods from one State to another in pursuance of the contract, we are unable to agree with the view of the Tribunal that the transactions are inter-State in character.
3. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on a number of decisions and, in particular, the decisions reported in Jayajothi and Co. v. State of Madras [196.9] 23 S.T.C. 321 and in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Arasan Match Industries  23 S.T.C. 152. In Jayajothi and Co. v. State of Madras [196.9] 23 S.T.C. 321, the court specifically found that the terms of the contract did show that the supply of cotton in fulfilment of the terms of the contract was to be made by movement of the goods from one State to another. It was also noticed in that case that the goods were out-of-State at the time when the contract was entered into and when they were appropriated towards the contract. On these facts this Court held that though there was no specific terms relating to the place from which the goods are to be despatched mentioned in the contract itself, the transaction amounted to an inter-State sale. In the second of the case reported in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Arasan Match Industries  23 S.T.C. 152, this Court found on the facts that the parties contemplated the movement of the goods from one State to another even at the time of the contract. This fact clearly distinguishes those two cases from the case on hand. We accordingly hold that the disputed turnover is liable to be included in the assessment of the respondent.
4. The order of the Tribunal is therefore set aside and this revision petition is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250