Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the sales in question were sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce so as to attract the exemption under Article 286(2) of the Constitution.
Analysis: A sale is inter-State only when the contract of sale itself makes the movement of goods from one State to another an integral and necessary part of performance. Mere despatch of goods across State borders at the buyer's instruction, or delivery of railway receipts, is not enough unless such movement is stipulated by the contract. On the facts, the buyers could take delivery within the State or direct despatch to destinations either within or outside the State, and the crossing of the State border was not an essential term of the bargain. The sales therefore did not qualify as inter-State sales. Even otherwise, inter-State sales during the relevant period were taxable because the parliamentary validation legislation lifted the constitutional ban retrospectively, and the State charging provision operated accordingly.
Conclusion: The sales were not protected by Article 286(2) and were rightly included in the taxable turnover; the answer to the reference was in favour of the Revenue.