https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127556 Residence of the dealer was held irrelevant to sales tax liability; the decisive factors were the locus and character of the transactions. Goods brought from outside Madras and delivered there for consumption were treated as falling within the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) and also as transactions in the course of inter-State trade and commerce under Article 286(2). The earlier view that such sales lay outside Article 286(2) protection was treated as displaced. Although the transactions would otherwise have been exempt, section 2 of Ordinance III of 1956 validated the levy for transactions within the ordinance period, so the sales were held liable to tax. en-us Tue, 17 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:36:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127556 Residence of the dealer was held irrelevant to sales tax liability; the decisive factors were the locus and character of the transactions. Goods brought from outside Madras and delivered there for consumption were treated as falling within the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) and also as transactions in the course of inter-State trade and commerce under Article 286(2). The earlier view that such sales lay outside Article 286(2) protection was treated as displaced. Although the transactions would otherwise have been exempt, section 2 of Ordinance III of 1956 validated the levy for transactions within the ordinance period, so the sales were held liable to tax. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 17 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127556