https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127375 Article 286 was read as restricting State tax on sales outside the State, while the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) created a legal fiction treating certain deliveries for consumption in the destination State as sales within that State. The earlier Supreme Court ruling in State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. was treated as binding authority for that position, and Travancore-Cochin was not taken to have overruled it. Sales falling within the Explanation would be exempt; sales not satisfying it would remain taxable under Article 286(2) subject to the constitutional exception preserved by the proviso and the President's Order. en-us Thu, 31 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Mar 2013 10:56:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127375 Article 286 was read as restricting State tax on sales outside the State, while the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) created a legal fiction treating certain deliveries for consumption in the destination State as sales within that State. The earlier Supreme Court ruling in State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. was treated as binding authority for that position, and Travancore-Cochin was not taken to have overruled it. Sales falling within the Explanation would be exempt; sales not satisfying it would remain taxable under Article 286(2) subject to the constitutional exception preserved by the proviso and the President's Order. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 31 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127375