Export exemption requires an integral link between purchase and export; disputed tax facts should usually be left to statutory appeal.

Export exemption under Article 286(1)(b) applies only where the sale or purchase itself occasions the export and is inseparably connected with the actual export; mere later export of goods bought in India is insufficient. The text notes that the existence of an export contract, an obligation to export, and actual export pursuant to that obligation are material, fact-dependent considerations. It also states that disputed tax questions of fact are ordinarily left to the statutory appellate machinery, and that writ interference under Article 226 is not appropriate absent a patent legal infirmity or demonstrable lack of independent application of mind by the Assessing Authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the purchase of cotton in Punjab, followed by export from Bombay, was exempt from purchase tax as a sale or purchase in the course of export under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution and section 29 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether the writ petition could succeed on the ground that the Assessing Authority had not applied its independent mind or that the assessment should be struck down in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the purchase of cotton in Punjab, followed by export from Bombay, was exempt from purchase tax as a sale or purchase in the course of export under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution and section 29 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: Exemption under Article 286(1)(b) applies only where the sale or purchase itself occasions the export and there is an inextricable and integrated connection between the transaction of sale and the actual export. Mere subsequent export of goods purchased in India is not enough. The existence of an export contract, an obligation to export, and actual export pursuant to that obligation are material facts, and their determination depends on the circumstances of each case.

Conclusion: The claimed exemption was not established on the material before the Court and the issue was left to be determined on the facts by the departmental hierarchy; no writ relief was granted on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition could succeed on the ground that the Assessing Authority had not applied its independent mind or that the assessment should be struck down in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Tax disputes involving disputed facts are ordinarily to be pursued through the statutory appellate machinery rather than by invoking Article 226. The record did not show a patent legal infirmity or absence of independent judicial application of mind by the Assessing Authority. The alleged administrative letter was neither produced nor shown to have controlled the assessment, and the appellate remedy remained available.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for interference on these grounds and no case for quashing the assessment was made out.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were rejected in writ jurisdiction, leaving the assessee to pursue the statutory appellate remedy on the disputed factual questions.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale or purchase is in the course of export only when it is integrally connected with and occasions the export itself, and disputed tax questions of fact should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory remedy rather than resolved in writ proceedings under Article 226.

---