https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128921 Sales delivered outside Madras State for consumption in the delivery States were treated as outside sales protected by Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution, because the lower appellate tribunal had specifically found that the goods were in fact delivered outside Madras for use in those States. That constitutional prohibition barred taxation by Madras State even though the goods were located in Madras when the contract was made. Reliance on Ashok Leyland was rejected, as that decision was understood to concern Article 286(2), not the separate protection for outside sales under Article 286(1)(a). Section 2(h) of the Sales Tax Act, 1939, could not override the constitutional ban. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:04:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128921 Sales delivered outside Madras State for consumption in the delivery States were treated as outside sales protected by Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution, because the lower appellate tribunal had specifically found that the goods were in fact delivered outside Madras for use in those States. That constitutional prohibition barred taxation by Madras State even though the goods were located in Madras when the contract was made. Reliance on Ashok Leyland was rejected, as that decision was understood to concern Article 286(2), not the separate protection for outside sales under Article 286(1)(a). Section 2(h) of the Sales Tax Act, 1939, could not override the constitutional ban. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 24 Jun 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128921