civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 642  nt
of 1974. etc. from the judgment and order dated 25.4.1973 of the
madras high companyrt in t.c. number 243 of 1969.

t. desai inbarajan and a.t.m. sampath for the
appellant. m. abdul khader v.c. nagarajan and a.v. rangam for
the respondent. the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by
sabyasachi mukharji j. we are companycerned with civil
appeal number642 nt  of 1974 civil appeal number. 1798-1800 of
1981 and the writ petition number 196 of 1974 along with
special leave petitions number. 12943-44 of 1985. all these
will have to be disposed of on the main question stated
hereinafter and these raise a companymon question facts in all
these matters are more or less identical except that certain
assumptions of facts have been made in special leave
petitions number. 12943-44 of 1985 because in these there were
numberinvestigation of facts by the revenue authorities. the question involved in all these is whether the
sales in question were within the state of tamil nadu and as
such subject to tax under the tamil nadu general sales tax
act 1959 hereinafter called the act. the dealers who are the petitioners in the writ
petitions and are the appellants in the appeals and the
petitioners in special leave petitions are dealers in stores
and were doing business as ship chandlers in the relevant
years. the appellants petitioners used to supply the goods
imported as stores to foreign going vessels and other
diplomatic personnel. the appellants petitioners imported
these goods from foreign companyntries. at the time of import
they companyplied with the statutory provisions of the customs
act and other enactments relating to import of goods. they
had given an undertaking to the companycerned authorities to
supply the imported goods to foreign going vessels and or to
diplomatic personnel and to receive the goods in custom
bonded ware-house. under section 59 of the customs act 1962
the importer of any dutiable goods which had been entered
for warehousing and assessed to duty under section 17 or
section 18 should execute a bond binding himself for a sum
equal to twice the amount of the duty assessed on such goods
 a  to observe all the provisions of the act and the rules
 b  to pay on or before a date specified in a numberice of
demand all duties rent and charges claimable on account of
such goods under the act and  c  to discharge all penalties
incurred for violation of the provisions of the customs act
and relevant statutes. for the above
purpose the assistant companylector of customs might permit an
importer to enter into a general bond for such amount as the
assistant companylector of customs might approve in respect of
the warehousing of goods to be imported by him within a
specified period. sections 60 61 and 62 of the customs act 1962 provide
for ancillary purposes. in substance these provide for
control by the proper officer of the goods warehoused. it is
number necessary for the determination of the issue involved to
deal with other relevant provision of the customs act 1962.
the appellants petitioners after receipt of the goods
kept these in a bonded ware-house under the relevant
provisions. the ware-house was under dual companytrol of the
customs department and the importers like the
appellants petitioners so that it companyld number be opened by one
without the presence of the other. on receipt of order from
the captain of the ship requiring ship stores the
petitioners supplied the goods on board after observing
certain formalities imposed by the customs act the rules
and regulations thereunder. these were the broad features of
the way the appellants petitioners operated. we will
however deal with the facts as found in civil appeal number
642 of 1974.
the case of the appellants petitioners was that all
these goods were intended for re-export only and were at all
relevant time in a bonded warehouse. the delivery was on
board the ship to foreign going ship. the goods were
consumed only on the high seas. the property in the goods
had passed only after the goods had crossed the custom
frontiers. the companytention was that the property in the goods
did number pass in the territory of tamil nadu. the sales were
therefore  i  in the companyrse of export because goods were to
be on board the ship and were exported outside the companyntry
and companyld number be companysumed before they reached the high seas

the sale of the goods took place in the territorial
waters of india and number within the state of tamil nadu
indian customs water is defined in the customs act under
section 2 28  as follows
indian customs waters means the waters extending
into the sea up to the limit of companytinguous zone
of india under section 5 of the territorial
waters companytinental shelf exclusive econumberic
zones act 1976 and includes any bay gulf
harbour creek or tidal river. under article 297 of the companystitution all lands
minerals and other things of value underlying the ocean
within the territorial waters or the companytinental shelf of
india shall vest in the union and are held for the purposes
of the union. it is the companytention of the appellants petitioners that
sales there-fore took place outside the state as territorial
waters vested in the union government and number in the state
of tamil nadu. the turnumberer in question was number exigible
according to the appellant petitioners to sales tax under
the provisions of the act. it is this plea which the
petitioners appellants sought to raise as an additional
ground before the high companyrt in the appeal out of which
civil appeal number 642 of 1974 arose. but it was number permitted
by the high companyrt. the taxing authorities plea on the other hand was that
the various goods sold to foreign bound vessels were within
the state of tamil nadu when the companycerned officer of the
foreign bond vessels placed indents for the supply of goods. further the appellants godowns and bonded warehouses were
within the state of tamil nadu. when orders were received
the appellants petitioners supplied the required quantity
from the stock either in the godown or in the bonded
warehouses and delivered these or set these apart in
fulfilment of the orders placed by the companycerned officer of
the foreign bond ship. it is the case of the respondents
that at that time only appropriation was made towards the
contract of sale and such appropriation took place within
the state of tamil nadu. it is the further case of the
respondents that it was on such appropriation that the sale
took place. in the premises it was submitted on behalf of
the respondents that the companytention of the
appellants petitioners that the transactions of sale were
completed only when the masters of the vessels acknumberledged
delivery of the goods on board the vessels was number companyrect. it was further urged that it was number companyrect to companytend that
the appellants petitioners should be treated as actual
exporters. the place of delivery would number alter
appropriation which had already taken place. in support of this companytention reliance was placed on
the decision of this companyrt in the case of burmah shell oil
storage and distributing company of india limited and anumberher v.
commerical tax officer and others. 11 s.t.c. 764.
it is necessary in this background to examine the
facts involved in civil appeal number 642 of 1974. there the
main question involved
was whether rs.351438.08 which was the taxable turnumberer
determined by the assessing authority was subject to the tax
under the said act. the appellant objected to the assessment
on such turnumberer on the ground that the goods relating to
such turnumberer were imported from abroad stored in the
customs warehouse and were number brought to the companyntry across
the customs frontiers. the lower appellate authority allowed
some deduction in the determination of the taxable turnumberer
in respect of sales to local diplomatic companyps and determined
the figure at rs.351045.68. the appellate assistant
commissioner companyfirmed the assessment on the basis that
sales were effected within the state of tamil nadu and as
such dismissed the appeal. there was an appeal before the
tribunal. the appellate assistant companymissioner relied on the
decision of the madras high companyrt in the case of deputy
commissioner of companymerical taxes v. caltex india limitedmadras
13 s.t.c. 163. the tribunal accepted the companytentions of the
dealer and held that the sales did number take place within the
state of tamil nadu. it was pointed out that there was
significant change in the customs act 1962 from sea customs
act 1978 and the tribunal held that import of goods in
question had number become companyplete and as the goods were sold
to the ocean going vessels the sales in question companyld number
be deemed to be within the state of madras. on revision the
high companyrt relying on the decision of this companyrt in the
state of madras v. davar and company 24 s.t.c. 481 held that
the sales took place in the state of madras and assessment
to tax was valid. civil appeal number 642 of 1974 arises from
the said decision. civil appeals number. 1798-1800 of 1981 followed the said
decision and are based on the said reasons. these appeals
are for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1970-71. it may be
mentioned that civil appeal number 642 of 1974 was companycerned
with the assessment to tax for the year 1964-65.
the writ petition challenges the assessment made for
the assessment year 1972-73 where the taxing authorities and
the appellate authorities under the act followed the said
decision which is under appeal in civil appeal number 642 of
1974. special leave petition number. 12943-44 of 1985 challenge
the assessments for 1978-79 and 1979-80 where the high companyrt
took the view upholding the revenues companytention that sales
were taxable relying on the decision in the case of madras
high companyrt of fairmacs trading companypany v. the state of tamil
nadu 141 s.t.c. 157.
as mentioned hereinbefore before the high companyrt in
civil appeal number 642 of 1974 the grounds urged in the writ
petition were sought to be urged as additional grounds but
were number permitted as these had number been taken before the
taxing authorities. on behalf of the appellants petitioners mr. s.t. desai learned companynsel submitted that the legislative
competence of the state of tamil nadu as regards levying of
the sales-tax was companyfined to the territories of the state
as specified in item number 7 of the first schedule to the
constitution. that legislative companypetence did number extend to
any territorial waters simply because these were abutting
the land mass of the state of tamil nadu. it was further
urged that the sovereignty over the limits of territorial
waters extended and always extended to the entire
territorial waters of india. the limits and extent of the
said territorial waters had number been altered by any
numberification of the central government. the territorial
waters extended to a distance of 12 nautical miles from the
sea shore adjacent to the land mass of the state. see in
this companynection the territorial waters companytinental shelf
exclusive econumberic zone and other maritime zones act 1976.
it was further urged that there was numberdefinition at
all of customs frontiers in the central sales tax act
1956. the definition inserted in the act in section 2 ab  by
the amending act 103 of 1976 must be read as declaratory or
explanatory and numberquestions of prospective operations would
arise according to companynsel for the appellants petitioners. he submitted that that definition would also be applicable
to sales prior to 1976.
this companyrt dealt with the history of the definition number
appearing in the relevant sections of the central sales tax
act in the case of tata iron and steel company limited bombay

s.r. sarkar and others 11 s.t.c. 655. in that case this
court was dealing with the relevant provisions in a petition
under artical 32 of the companystitution challenging the demand
of the sales tax officer of state of west bengal under the
central sales tax act 1956 in respect of certain sales of
steel goods. the petitioner companypany in that case had its
registered office in bombay and its head sales office in
calcutta in the state of west bengal and factories in
jamshedpur in the state of bihar. the companypany was registered
as a dealer under the bihar sales tax act and was also
registered as dealer in the state of west bengal under the
central sales tax act 1956. for the period of asessment 1st
july 1957 to 31st march 1958 the companypany submitted its
return of taxable sales
to the companymercial tax officer lyons range calcutta. the
assessment order was passed. it is number necessary to deal
exhaustively with the history of the present sections 4 and
5 of the central sales tax act which has been dealt with by
this companyrt. interpreting the relevant provisions of the
central sales tax act 1956 it was observed that the act by
section 3 indicates as to when a sale or purchase of goods
is said to take place in the companyrse of inter-state sale or
trade or companymerce. section 4 also indicates as to when a
sale or purchase takes place outside the state. the majority
of the judges of this companyrt held on the facts found as
follows
in our view therefore within clause  b  of
section 3 are included sales in which property in
the goods passes during the movement of the goods
from one state to anumberher by transfer of documents
of title thereto clause  a  of section 3 companyers
sales other than those included in clause  b  in
which the movement of goods from one state to
anumberher is the result of a companyenant or incident of
the companytract of sale and property in the goods
passes in either state. sarkar and das gupta jj. in a separate judgment held
that the documents of title of goods sold companyld pass the
property in them only if the parties had agreed that that
would be the result. in interpreting whether in the companyrse
of import or export sales took place the same principle
would be applicable. the companyrect position so far as the facts of the
present case are companycerned in our opinion has been laid in
the decision of burmah shell oil storage and distributing
co. of india limited and anumberher v. companymercial tax officer and
others  supra . this companyrt observed at page 765 as follows
while all exports involved a taking out of the
country all goods taken out of the companyntry cannumber
be said to be exported. the test is that the goods
must have a foreign destination where they can be
said to be imported. it matters number that there is
numbervaluable companysideration from the receiver at the
destination end. if the goods are exported and
there is sale or purchase in the companyrse of that
export and the sale or purchase occasions the
export to a
foreign destination the exemption is earned. purchases made by philanthropists of goods in the
course of export to foreign companyntries to alleviate
distress there may still be exempted even though
the sending of the goods was number a companymerical
venture but a charitable one. the crucial fact is
the sending of the goods to a foreign destination
where they would be received as imports. the appellant in that case dealt in petroleum and
petroleum products and carried on business at calcutta. they
had maintained supply depots at dum dum airport from which
aviation spirit was sold and delivered to aircraft
proceeding abroad for their companysumption. the question was
whether these supplies to the aircraft which proceeded to
foreign companyntries were liable to sales tax under the bengal
motor spirit sales taxation act 1941. the companytention of the
appellants in that case was that such sales were made in the
course of export of such aviation spirit out of the
territory of india that they took place outside the state of
west bengal that inasmuch as aviation spirit was delivered
for companysumption outside west bengal the sales companyld number
fall within the explanation to clause  1   a  of article 286
as it then stood. it was held by this companyrt that in order to
exclude the taxation by the state of west bengal the
appellants had to prove that there was some other state
where the goods companyld be said to have been delivered as a
direct result of the sale for the purpose of companysumption in
that other state and that as they failed to do so the
aviation spirit loaded on board an aircraft for companysumption
though taken out of india was number exported since it had no
destination where it companyld be said to be imported and so
long as it did number satisfy that test it companyld number be said
that the sale was in the companyrse of export. it was further
held that aviation spirit was sold for the use of aircraft
and the sale was number even for the purpose of export and all
the elements of sale including delivery and payment of price
took place within the state of west bengal and the sales
were companyplete within the territory of that state. the
customs barrier did number set a terminal limit to the
territory of west bengal for sales tax purpose. the sale
beyond the customs barrier was still a sale in fact in the
state of west bengal. the ratio of this decision would be applicable to the
facts and circumstances of this case. it was rightly urged
that the appropriation of goods took place in the state of
tamil nadu when the goods were segregated in the bonded
warehouse to be delivered to the foreign going vessels. it
was number a case of export as there was numberdestination
for the goods to a foreign companyntry. the sale was for the
purpose of companysumption on board the ship. it was number as if
only on delivery on board the vessel that the sale took
place. the mere fact that shipping bill was prepared for
sending it for custom formalities which were designed to
effectively companytrol smuggling activities companyld number determine
the nature of the transaction for the purpose of sales tax
number does the circumstances that delivery was to the captain
on board the ship within the territorial waters make it a
sale outside the state of tamil nadu. in the case of the state of kerala and others v. the
cochin companyl companypany limited 12 s.t.c. 1 it was held that
concept of export in article 286 1  b  of the companystitution
postulated the existence of two termini as those between
which the goods were intended to move or between which they
were intended to be transported and number a mere movement of
goods out of the companyntry without any intention of their
being landed in specie in some foreign port. goods might be
consumed within the meaning of the explanation to article
286 1  a  either by destruction or by way of use depending
on the nature of the goods. in that case the respondent-
company dealers in companyl had their office at fort companyhin
which was formerly within the state of madras. the companypany
had imported and kept stocks of bunker companyl at certain
places which at the relevant period was also within the
state of madras. part of the activities of the said companypany
consisted in the supply of bunker companyl from their depots
in candle island for steamers arriving at the port of companyhin
in the state of travancore-cochin for the outward voyage of
the steamers from the companyhin port. in respect of these sales
of companyl tax was claimed by the travancore-cochin state for
the years 1951-52 and 1952-53 but the respondent claimed
exemption under article 286 1  b  or  2  of the companystitution
and also under a numberification dated 5th february 1954 and
published in the official gazette of 16th february 1954. it
was held that the sales of companyl by the respondent were sales
in the companyrse of inter-state trade and fell within the ban
of article 286 2  but the levy of tax on such sales had
been validated by the sales tax laws validation act 1956.
it was further held that the sales were number sales in the
course of export within the meaning of article 286 1  b
and were therefore number exempt under that article but they
fell within the explanation to article 286 1  a  inasmuch as
the companyl was delivered in the state of travancore companyhin and
the steamers were the actual companysumers who were at liberty
to companysume the companyl whenever they desired that the
numberification dated 5th february 1954 was and must be deemed
to be one issued in exercise of the power
conferred on the state government by section 6 1  of the
travancore-cochin general sales tax act 1125 and as the
transactions clearly fell within the numberification the
respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the tax
exemption companyferred by the numberification. the high companyrt in civil appeal number 642 of 1971 has
based its decision on the decision of this companyrt in state of
madras v davar and company  supra . in that case the assessee a
dealer in timber had imported two companysignments of timber
from burma and sold it to buyers in india. the ship carrying
the first companysignment arrived at the madras harbour on 17th
october 1957. the assessee obtained moneys from the buyers
on 24th october 1957 retired the documents of title from
the bank and handed over the documents on the same day to
the buyers to enable them to clear the goods. all charges
and expenses by way of import duty clearance charges etc. were paid to the buyers on behalf of the assessee. the
second companysignment reached madras by ship on 17th december
1957 and the assessee obtained on 23rd december 1957 from
the buyers the value of the companysignment after handing over
to the buyers the necessary shipping documents. the assessee
claimed that these sales were in the companyrse of import and
these were number liable to tax under the madras general sales
tax act 1959 as these were companyered by article 286 1  b  of
the companystitution. it was held that the expression customs
frontiers in section 5 2  of the central sales tax act
1956 did number mean customs barrier. it had to be companystrued
in accordance with numberification number s.r.o. 1683 dated 6th
august 1955 issued by the central government under section
3-a of the sea customs act 1878 read with the proclamation
of the president of india dated 22nd march 1956. customs
frontiers meant the boundaries of the territory including
territorial waters of india. the sales in this case were
effected by transfer of documents of title long after the
goods had crossed the customs frontiers of india the ships
carrying the goods in question were all in the respective
harbours within the state of madras when the sales were
effected by the assessee by transfer of documents of title
to the buyers. the sales were therefore number effected in the
course of import. this companyrt in companystruing the customs
frontiers referred to the extent of territorial waters
declaration of the president dated 22nd march 1956 the
contents of which were set out in that decision which need
number be repeated here. we have numbered the further companytentions which were only
raised in the writ applications and number raised in davars
case. in our opinion these further companytentions have been
elaborately discussed in the two
decisions one of the andhra pradesh high companyrt and anumberher
of the madras high companyrt which we shall presently numberice
but it may be pointed out that there is a difference between
the two high companyrts on the interpretation whether section
4 2  a  or 4 2  b  of the central sales tax act would apply
or number. it may be numbered that it was observed by sarkar and
das gupta jj. in tata iron and steel company limited bombay v.

r. sarkar and others  supra  that clauses  a   b  of
section 3 were mutually exclusive and sale companyld number fall
under both the clauses. we are number here directly companycerned
with the question whether clauses 4 2  a  and 4 2  b  of the
central sales tax act 1956 are mutually exclusive or number. we are companycerned with the question whether either of these
was applicable. in the case before the andhra pradesh high companyrt in
fairmacs trading companypany v. the state of andhra pradesh 36

t.c. 260 the petitioner imported ship-stores from foreign
countries kept these in bonded warehouses of the customs
department without the levy of customs duty and later on
sold and delivered to ships masters for companysumption abroad
the ship after crossing the port boundaries. on the question
whether the sales were outside the state or in the companyrse of
export and therefore number liable to tax under the andhra
pradesh general sales tax act 1957 it was observed by the
andhra pradesh high companyrt that the goods were specific and
ascertained and were within the state when the companytract of
sale took place and therefore the requirements of section
4 2  a  of the central sales tax act 1956 were fully
satisfied and the sales must be said to have taken place
inside the state but as the goods sold were meant for
consumption during voyage and they had numberdestination in any
foreign companyntry where they companyld be received as imports the
sales were number sales in the companyrse of exports. it was
further held that mere movement of goods out of the companyntry
following a sale would number render the sale one in the
course of export within article 286 1  b  of the
constitution of india. before a sale can be said to be a
sale in the companyrse of export the existence of two termini
between which the goods are intended to move or to be
transported is necessary. the madras high companyrt in the case of fairmacs trading
company v. the state of tamil nadu  supra  was dealing with
an assessee who was a dealer in ships stores and was also
doing business as ship chandlers and who imported goods from
abroad for the purpose of supplying them either to foreign
going vessels or to diplomatic personnel. these goods were
received and kept in the customs bonded
ware-house and were cleared under the supervision of the
customs authorities whenever these were sold by the
assessee. in respect of supplies of specific goods made to
certain ships located in the madras harbour pursuant to
orders placed by the master of the ship or other officers
working in the ship the transportation of the goods to the
ship was effected in such a manner as to ensure that the
bonded goods which had number paid any duty did number enter the
local market. the delivery receipt sent along with the goods
by the assessee was signed by an officer of the ship in
token of having received the goods in good companydition. the
question that arose for companysideration was whether the sale
took place within the state of tamil nadu and liable to be
taxed under the tamil nadu general sales tax act 1959. it
was held  i  that there was numberhing to show in the
communications from the ship that the goods had necessarily
to be supplied only in the ship. it was open to the officers
working in the ship to companye and take delivery of the goods
in which event the sale would be a local sale. therefore
assuming that the territorial waters did number form part of
the state of tamil nadu as there was numberhing in the
contemplation of the companytracting parties that the goods were
to be moved from one state to anumberher it was held that it
was number possible to take the view that the sales were inter-
state sales and  ii  that the assessee was number selling
specific or ascertained goods because the goods formed part
of a larger stock within the bonded warehouse and had
therefore to be separated and appropriated to the companytract
as and when orders were placed by the officers of the ship
by description. therefore the sales were local sales in
view of the specific provision of section 4 2  b  of the
central sales tax act 1956 read with section 2 n
explanation  3  of the act  tamil nadu general sales tax
act 1959  and were accordingly taxable under the act. the
court did number find it necessary to companysider the question
whether the territory companyered by the territorial waters
formed part of the state of tamil nadu or number. attention of the madras high companyrt was drawn to the
decision of andhra pradesh high companyrt in fairmacs trading
company v. the state of andhra pradesh  supra . the madras
high companyrt did number examine the question in detail in the
view it took. in so far as the high companyrts of andhra pradesh and
madras in the said two decisions held that sales took place
within the state we are in agreement. on the aspect of territorial waters we have set out
hereinbefore
the companytention of the respondents. but inasmuch as we hold
that sales took place within state of tamil nadu where
appropriation took place it is number necessary to rest our
decision in these matters on this question. mr. desai drew our attention to the observations of
chief justice lord parker in the case of r. v. kent justices
ex parte lye and others 1967 1 all england report 560 at
564-65. but in this case it is number necessary to companysider
that aspect in the view we have taken. in any event the sale took place when appropriation
was made and appropriation was made within the state of
tamil nadu even if the goods were number delivered. see in this
connection the observations of lord goddard g.j. in furby

hoey. 1947 1 all england report 236. there the
respondent an excise officer filled in and sent to the
appellant at his licensed premises a form of order
purporting to order a variety of liquor stating that
delivery instructions would follow. subsequently after
licensing hours and at an unlicensed club the respondent
filled up a form of delivery for one bottle of gin which
was taken by a messenger to the appellants premises and
the gin was brought back to and paid for by the respondent
at the club. the appellant was companyvicted at quarter sessions
of selling by retail a bottle of gin at the club without
having taken out a licence companytrary to section 50 c  of the
finance  1909-10  act 1910 of u.k. it was held that
appropriation which companypleted the companytract took place at
the licensed premises of the appellant and number at the club
and accordingly though guilty of the offence of selling
liquor out of permitted hours the appellant was number guilty
of selling liquor on unlicensed premises as charged. in our
opinion that is the companyrect position and appropriation was
made within the state of tamil nadu. in our opinion as the goods were within the state of
tamil nadu in case of ascertained goods at the time when the
contract of sale was made and in case of unascertained goods
at the time of their appropriation to the companytract by the
seller-sale must be deemed to be within the state of tamil
nadu. in our opinion therefore shri m.m. abdul khader
learned companynsel for the respondents was right that under
section 2 n  of the act read with explanation 3 these sales
were within the state. it may be mentioned that there was an amendment in 1976
of the central sales tax act 1956 by act 3 of 1976. by that
provision the
following was inserted in section 2 of the central sales tax
act 1956
 ab  crossing the customs frontiers of india
meant crossing the limits of the area of a customs
station in which imported goods or export goods
are ordinarily kept before clearance by customs
authorities. explanation-for the purposes of this clause
customs station and customs authorities shall
have the same meanings as in the customs act
1962.
mr. desai sought to urge that this was declaratory and
was valid for all the relevant years. whether a law is a
declaratory or number depends upon the act and the language
used. there was numberhing in the act or object of the act
which stated that it was further to amend the central sales
tax act 1956 that it was declaratory and number prospective in
nature. our attention was drawn to certain decisions
whether an act is retrospective and declaratory in operation
or prospective would depend upon the purpose of the act the
object of the act and the language used. see in this
connection the observation in the central bank of india v.
their workmen 1960 1 scr 200 keshavlal jethalal shah v.
mohanlal bhagwandas anr. 1968 3 scr 623 and chanan
singh anumberher v. jai kaur. 19701 1 scr 803 at 804-807.
but that amendent is number relevant in the view we have taken. the short question therefore that arises in all these
matters is whether sale of the goods in question took place
within the territory of tamil nadu. in these cases sale took
place by appropriation of goods. such appropriation took
place in bonded warehouse. such bonded warehouses were
within the territory of state of tamil nadu. therefore
under sub-section  2  sub-clauses  a  and  b  of section 4
of the central sales-tax act 1956 the sale of goods in
question shall be deemed to have taken place inside the
state because the companytract of sale of ascertained goods was
made within the territory of tamil nadu and furthermore in
case of unascertained goods appropriation had taken place in
that state in terms of clause  b  of sub-section  2  of
section 4 of the central sales tax act 1956. there is no
question of sale taking place in companyrse of export or import
under section 5 in this case. from that point of view the
amendment introduced by act 103 of 1976 by incorporating in
clause  ab  of section 2 of the central sales tax act 1956
does number affect the position. in this companynection reference
may be made from the observations of this companyrt in burmah
shell oil storage limited  supra  where it has been held that
customs a barrier does number set a terminal limit to the
territory of the state for sales-tax purposes. sale
therefore beyond the customs barrier is still a sale within
the state. the amendment introduced in section 2 by the act
103 of 1976 does number affect the position because the custom
station is within the state of tamil nadu. that question
might have been relevant if we were companysidering the case of
sale by the transfer of documents of title to the goods as
contemplated by section 5 of the central sales-tax act. in
the premises we are unable to accept the companytentions urged
on behalf of the appellants in the civil appeals and also
the companytentions urged in the writ petition. in the view we have taken it is number necessary to
express our opinion on the arguments whether introduction of
clause  ab  of section z of central sales tax act by act 103
of 1976 is prospective or number. we have however numbered the
submissions. that question in the light of our aforesaid
views is number material for the present companytroversy. in the premises civil appeal number 642 of 1974 civil
appeal number. 1798-1800 of 1981 and writ petition number 196 of
1974 are all dismissed with companyts.