https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292963 The court held that sales by a cement company, despite being F.O.R. the destination outside the state, did not qualify for exemption under Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution as actual delivery outside the state was necessary. Additionally, the sales were not considered inter-state trade under Article 286(2) as the goods were deemed sold within the state upon consignment to railway wagons. The judgment emphasized that seller liability ceased upon delivery to the carrier at the factory site, with any transit issues to be addressed with the carrier. The Revision case was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents. en-us Mon, 16 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:16:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292963 The court held that sales by a cement company, despite being F.O.R. the destination outside the state, did not qualify for exemption under Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution as actual delivery outside the state was necessary. Additionally, the sales were not considered inter-state trade under Article 286(2) as the goods were deemed sold within the state upon consignment to railway wagons. The judgment emphasized that seller liability ceased upon delivery to the carrier at the factory site, with any transit issues to be addressed with the carrier. The Revision case was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 16 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292963