https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127298 Sales turnover of matches despatched outside Madras remained taxable because the assessee did not prove actual delivery in another State for consumption there, which was necessary to attract the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a). On that factual failure, the transactions continued to fall within Article 286(2) as inter-State sales, and the Presidential Order validly preserved the State's power to levy tax until 31 March 1951. Section 22 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, as adapted, was consistent with that constitutional position, so the challenge to the levy failed. en-us Wed, 14 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:18:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127298 Sales turnover of matches despatched outside Madras remained taxable because the assessee did not prove actual delivery in another State for consumption there, which was necessary to attract the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a). On that factual failure, the transactions continued to fall within Article 286(2) as inter-State sales, and the Presidential Order validly preserved the State's power to levy tax until 31 March 1951. Section 22 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, as adapted, was consistent with that constitutional position, so the challenge to the levy failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 14 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127298