agreo as between themselves that no delivery would r9_6o be made, but difference in price would be paid, it Th B w .s. would be equally impossible for a taxing authority to Gra:n .:.:,.8 , discover in w hieh of the contracts such an agreement Ltd . .s. ot11m has been made. The dispute whether a particular v. contract is a wagering contract or not arises in civil Th• Stat• of courts generally when the contract of sale is sought to Punjab be enforced and one of the parties tries to avoid the Das Gupta J. contract by recourse to s. 30 of the Contract Act. When such a dispute comes before , the Court, it becomes necessary to consider all the ·circumstances to see whether they warrant the legal inference that the parties never intended any actual delivery but intended only to pay or receive the difference according as the market price should vary from the contract price. It is therefore well nigh impossible for any t.axing authority to brand a particular forward contract as a wagering eontract; nor is it to be expected that any party on whom the tax is sought to be levied, will voluntarily disclose that in the particular contract or in .a number of contracts, the -intention was not to deliver the goods but only to pay or receive the difference in price. A ware of these difficulties in the practical application of a law to levy tax on wagering contracts, the legislature decided to levy tax on contracts for sale of goods in which actual delivery iB0 11ot factually made or taken, whatever be the intention a:t<,the time when the· agreement was made. · ·
