Summarize the following court judgment. 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. Nayar	for the petitioner/appellants. 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 2(13) 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) Ltd.(1) 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 366(12) 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 2(7) 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 2(7) 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. V.P.S. Appeal allowed.

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 2(7) 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 2(7) 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.