ew Petition No 29 of 1969
Application for review of this Court s Judgment dated July 17 1969 in Civil Appeal No 1878 of 1967 arising out of the judgmentand order dated July 18 1966 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Application No 722 of 1965
N section Bindra and section P Nayarfor the petitionerappellants
A G Ratnaparkhi for the respondent
47 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J Appeal No 1878 of 1967 was ordered to be dismissed by this Court on July 17 1969
The Court held that the sale of standing trees is not sale of goods chargeable to sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959
A petition for review of Judgment has been filed by the State contending that after the judgment of the High Court and before the appeal was heard the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 was amended by the Maharashtra Act 15 of 1967 with retrospective operation and by the amendment standing timber was included in the definition of timber but counsel for the State failed to invite the attention of the Court to that Act
Since the judgment of this Court it is claimed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record we have granted review of judgment
The expression goods was defined in section 213 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959
By Maharashtra Act 15 of 1967 by section 2 the definition of goods was altered by providing that In section 2 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 
in clause 13 after the words and commodities  the following shall be and shall be deemed always to have been added namely and all standing timber which is agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale 
 The definition was retrospective in operation and the expression  goods included at all relevant times standing timber agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale
The expression sale of goods in Entry 54 List 11 of Sch
VII of the Constitution has the same connotation as it has in the 
This Court in The State of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley  Co Madras Ltd1 observed that the expression sale of goods was at the time when the Government Of India Act 1935 was enacted a term of well recognised legal import in the general law relating to sale of goods and in the legislative practice relating to that topic and must be interpreted in Entry 48 in List 11 in Sch
VII of the Act as having the same meaning as in the  see also Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 2
The expression  sale of goods in Entry 54 in List II of Sch
VII of the Consti tution has also the same meaning as that expression had in Entry 48 in List II of the Government of India Act 1935
The State Legislature may not therefore extend the import of the expression 1  2  48  sale of goods so as to impose liability for tax on transactions which are not sales of goods within the meaning of the 
By article 36612 of the Constitution the expression goods is defined as inclusive of all materials commodities and articles
That is however an inclusive definition and does not throw much light on the meaning of the expression goods
But the definition of goods in the  as meaning every kind of moveable property other than actionable claims and money and includes stock and shares growing crops grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale
Standing timber may ordinarily not be regarded as goods but by the in clusive definition given in section 27 of the things which are attached to the land may be the subject matter of contract of sale provided that under the terms of the contract they are to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale
In the present case it was expressly provided that the timber agreed to be sold shall be severed under the contract of sale
The timber was therefore goods within the meaning of section 27 of the and the expression sale of goods in the Constitution in Entry 54 List 11 having the same meaning as that expression has in the  sale of timber agreed to be severed under the terms of the contract may be regarded as sale of goods
The appeal is allowed and the petition filed by the respondent must be dismissed
Since the State succeeds in this appeal relying upon a statute which was passed after the judgment of the High Court there will be no order as to costs throughout
VPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The contract of sale entered into by the respondent expressly provided that the timber agreed to be sold shall be severed
The High Court held that the sale of standing trees was not a sale of goods chargeable to sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959
and the decision was confirmed by this Court on appeal
But after the judgment of the High Court and before the appeal was heard in this Court the expression goods in the Act was amended by Maharashtra Act 15 of 1967 with retrospective operation so that it included at all relevant times standing timber agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale
In a petition for review to this Court HELD  Since the judgment of this Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record the judgment should be reviewed and the appeal allowed
47C A State Legislature may not extend the import of the expression sale of goods so as to impose liability for tax on transactions which are not sales of goods within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act
But by the inclusive definition in section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act things which are attached to the land may be the subject matter of contract of sale provided that under the terms of the contract they are to be severed before sale of under the contract of sale
The timber in the present case was therefore goods within the meaning of section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act
Since the expression  sale of goods in Entry 54 List II of the Constitution has the same meaning as that expression has in the Sale of Goods Act the amendment is valid
47 H 48 A E The State of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley  and Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot vs The State of Madhya Pradesh   referred to