Report No. 30
28. Bengal Immunity case.-In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, [AIR 1955 SC 661: (1955) 2 SCR 603]. Mr. Justice Venkatarama Ayyar (in his dissenting judgment) observed in para. 153 at p. 734 (AIR) as follows:-
"A sale could be said to be in the course of inter-State trade only if two conditions concur:-
(1) a sale of goods, and
(2) a transport of those goods from one State to another under the contract of sale" (emphasis supplied by me).
"Unless both these conditions are satisfied there can be no sale in the course of inter-State trade. Thus, if X, a merchant in State A, goes to State B, purchases goods there and transports them into A, there is undoubtedly a movement of goods in inter-State commerce. But that is not under any contract of sale."
29. In support of these observations, the learned Judge has quoted a definition from Rottschaefer, a little lower down on the same page.
'In-Rottschaefer on Constitutional Law (1939 Edn.) a sale in the course of inter-State commerce is thus defined:
"The activities of buying and selling constitute inter-State commerce if the contracts therefor contemplate or necessarily involve the movement of goods in inter-State commerce".'
Second Report Law Commission.-In the Second Report of the Law Commission this is what is quoted from the same author (p. 4 bottom):-
"The decisive factor that renders making a contract an act of inter-State commerce is in that it contemplates or necessarily involves the movement of goods in inter-State commerce, and this test applies whether it be a contract to buy or one to sell."