Export-linked purchases do not automatically qualify for sales tax exemption under Article 286(1)(b).

Purchases of skins made after securing foreign export orders were held to be purchases for export purposes, but not purchases that themselves occasioned the export under Article 286(1)(b). The Court applied earlier constitutional sales tax rulings and held that State purchases made to implement export orders do not fall within the exemption. On that basis, the sales tax assessments were not illegal and non-payment of the assessed tax constituted an offence; the challenges to the exemption claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the purchases of skins, made to fulfil export orders, were purchases in the course of export so as to be exempt from sales tax under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the respondents first secured orders from foreign buyers and thereafter purchased skins in the State for supply to the intermediary and shipping agent for export. Such purchases were for the purpose of export, but they did not themselves occasion the export. On the authority of the earlier decisions dealing with Article 286(1)(b), purchases made in the State by an exporter to implement export orders did not fall within the constitutional exemption. On that evidence, the assessments to sales tax were therefore not illegal, and non-payment of the assessed tax constituted an offence. The Court found it unnecessary to pronounce on the validity of Section 16A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act or on the certificate issue under Article 134(1)(c).

Conclusion: The exemption claim failed and the assessments were upheld; the convictions were restored.

---