We itre concerned in the present case with clause (a) and not with clans¢ (b). A sale o_f goods can be held to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade under clause {a) of Section 3 of the Act if it can b~ shown that the sale has occasioned the movement of goods from one Slate to another. A sale in the course of inter-State trade has tI1ree essentials: (i) there must be a sale, (ii) the goods must actually be moved from one State to another, and (iii) the sale and movement of the goods must be part of the same transaction. The word "occasions" is used as a verb and ,means 'to cause or to be the immediate cause or. In the case of Tata Iron.and Steel Co. Ltd. v. S. R. Sarkar WU/ Ors.(') Shah Jc (as he then was) speaking for the majority obseiVed that a transaction of sale is subject to tax under the Act on the CQll)llletion of the sale. A mere.contract of sale is not a sale within the ,cleflll!ion of "sale" in section 2(g). A sale being, by the definition, transfer of property becomes taxable under section 3 (a) "if the move~! of goods from one State to another is under a covenant or incident of the contract of sale". In Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Co. Ci;Qlicor & Ors. v. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam & Ors(2) this Courf. dealt with the provisions of section 5 of the Act which relates to sale or purchase of goods in the course of import or expott. It was held that a sale in the course of export predicated con· n'eetlon between the sale and export, the two activities being so inte-gi',aied that the connection between the two, cannot be voluntarily interrupted without a breach of the contractor the compulsion arising from the: nature of the transaction. The export, it was further observed s00uld be inextricably linked up with the sale so that the bond cannot be dissociated the observations in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. as w~Jl as Ben Gonn Nilgiri Pla11tatio11s Co. were relied upon by a (hnstitution Bench of this Court in the case of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commer· cial Taxes & Another (3 ) and it was held that the sales to be exigible to tax under the Act must be shown to have occasioned the movement of goods or articles fqim one State to another and that the movement must be the ~esult of a convenant or incident of the contract of sale. It can, therefore, be said that a sale of goods is in the course of interSta!e trade if the sale and movement of goods from one State to another are' integral parts of the same transaction. There must exist a direct nexns between the sale and the movement of goods from one, State to the other. In other words the movement should be incident of and be neeessitated by the-contract of sale and thus be interlinked with the sale of goods. ···' lt is also plain from the language of section 3 (a) of the Act that the movement of goods from one State to another must be under the con· trac,t of sale. A movement of goods which takes place independently of :a. contract of sale would not fall within the ambit of the above clause. Perusal of section 3 (a) further makes it ,manifest that there must be a contract of sale preceding the movement of the goods from (I) rt961] I S. C. R, 379 (2) [1964] 7 S. C. R, 706. . (ll (1970]3 S, C R. 862
