Just a moment...
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 auction sales of tea chests together with export quota rights to agents or intermediaries of foreign buyers constituted sales in the course of export and were therefore exempt from State sales tax under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The majority held that a sale is protected only when the sale and the export form parts of one integrated transaction and the sale occasions the export. Mere knowledge that the purchaser intends to export, or that the goods are sold with export rights, does not by itself create the necessary bond between sale and export. On the facts, the sellers had no concern with the actual export after the sale was completed, the purchasers were free in law to divert the goods, and there was no statutory or contractual obligation making export an inseparable part of the sale. The Tea Act and the transfer of export quota rights merely facilitated export and did not compel it. The transactions were therefore sales for export and not sales in the course of export.
Conclusion: The sales were not exempt under Article 286(1)(b) and were taxable by the State.
Dissenting Opinion: Ayyangar, J. held that the sales and the export were part of a single integrated transaction, since the goods were sold to foreign buyers through their agents with an understanding that they would be exported, and the transfer of export quota rights formed part of the bargain. On that view, the sales occasioned the export and were protected from State taxation.