P. Govindan Nair, C.J.
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Board of Revenue imposing tax on the disputed turnover of Rs. 6,39,244.76 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956), for the assessment year 1964-65. The Board purported to act on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa  36 S.T.C. 136. In effect what it said was that there were two sales in the case, one by the appellant-assessee to the Calcutta buyer and the other by the Calcutta buyer with the foreign buyer. The Board of Revenue did not consider the nature of the sale by the assessee to the Calcutta buyer. The relevant part of the order of the Board of Revenue is in these terms :
The contentions have been examined with reference to the connected records. The plea to defer the decision of the Board till the contemplated legislation by the Government of India took into shape cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Board has decided to dispose of the case on merits with reference to the law in force. The assessees had entered into contracts with M/s. Agents (India) Private Limited, Calcutta and M/s. Shyam Investment Corporation Private Limited, Calcutta. In pursuance to these contracts they placed the goods on board the ship and sent the bills of lading to the buyers at Calcutta through the bank for delivery against payment. The invoices for the sales were raised on the buyers in Calcutta. Admittedly, there was no contract between the assessees and the foreign buyers at Saigon. The contract for export of the goods was between the exporters at Calcutta and the importers at Saigon. The sale by the assessees to the exporters at Calcutta is a distinct one different from the export sales effected by the dealers at Calcutta. In Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa  36 S.T.C. 136, the Supreme Court has held that the sale by a local dealer to an exporter in this country for export to a foreign importer is a local sale exigible to tax and not a sale in the cdurse of export. It further held that a mention of f. o. b. in the contract did not convert it into an f. o. b. contract with the foreign buyer. Though the authorised representative 'contended that the facts in this case are different from the facts in the case of Mod. Serajuddin1, decided by the Supreme Court, he did not say in what respect the facts are different. The facts in this case clearly go to show that the sales by the assessees are local sales exigible to tax.
2. That there are two sales in the case in regard to the transactions represented by the turnover of Rs. 6,39,244.76, which we have referred to, there can be no dispute. The assessee had sent invoices to the Calcutta buyer. Though the bills of lading were taken in the name of the assessee after putting the goods on vessels either in the Madras Port or in the Cochin Port, these bills of lading were endorsed in favour of the Calcutta buyer and were sent to the bank to be delivered to the Calcutta buyer against payments to be made by the Calcutta buyer. There were contracts of sale between the assessee and the Calcutta buyer. The Board of Revenue has not considered what is the nature of these sales. The Board was right in applying the principle of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa  36 S.T.C. 136. But the further question arises whether there were any interState sales which were exigible to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This aspect apparently had been overlooked. But we do not consider that the case should be sent back to the Board of Revenue or to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, though the order of the Appellate Commissioner also creates certain difficulties, because the facts have all been admitted before us. Some of the goods represented by the turnover of Rs. 6,39,244.76 were sent to Cochin by the assessee to be put on board the vessels in the Cochin Port. Those goods amounted to Rs. 3,91,462.75. The rest of the goods were transported to the Madras Port to be put on board the vessels in that port. The turnover relating to these goods is Rs. 2,47,782.01. It is necessary that in order that a sale may be an inter State sale, there must be movement of goods from one State to the State in which the buyer is. It is enough if the sale occasions the movement of the goods from one State to another. The contract of sale, as we have said, is between the appellant before us and the Calcutta buyer and there can be no doubt that the movement of the goods was caused by this contract of sale. If as a result of this contract of sale there was movement from one State to another, the transaction will clearly become exigible to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, because that would be an inter-State sale. But if the goods are moved as a result of a contract from one part of the State to another part of the State, there cannot be any inter-State movement, which is an essential element for the purpose of treating the transaction as an inter-State one exigible to tax as an inter-State sale. This aspect has not been noticed by any of the authorities. As we have said, the facts are clear and the movement of the goods from Coimbatore to Madras-both the places are within the Tamil Nadu State-cannot constitute an inter-State movement and hence clearly the turnover of Rs. 2,47,782.01 cannot be said to be taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. The turnover of Rs. 3,91,462.75 relating to the goods which crossed the Tamil Nadu border and entered Kerala and were shipped in the Cochin Port was clearly taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. In the light of the above, we allow the appeal in part and hold that the turnover of Rs. 3,91,462.75 relating to the goods that were transported from Coimbatore to Cochin is taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. We also hold that this is the only turnover that is taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs as the appeal has been partly lost and partly won.