https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160754 Article 285(1) bars State taxation of Union property, and a statutory definition of "dealer" cannot override that constitutional protection. A demand raised by a State taxing authority against Union property was therefore beyond jurisdiction and contrary to Article 285(1). The presence of the Union and the State as parties did not, by itself, make the dispute one that falls exclusively under Article 131, because the challenge was to a quasi-judicial demand notice under State law. The preliminary jurisdictional objection failed, and the notice was quashed. en-us Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:13:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160754 Article 285(1) bars State taxation of Union property, and a statutory definition of "dealer" cannot override that constitutional protection. A demand raised by a State taxing authority against Union property was therefore beyond jurisdiction and contrary to Article 285(1). The presence of the Union and the State as parties did not, by itself, make the dispute one that falls exclusively under Article 131, because the challenge was to a quasi-judicial demand notice under State law. The preliminary jurisdictional objection failed, and the notice was quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160754