Report No. 61

Chronological Events Relevant to The Problem

3.13. Background of the problem.-

To put the question in its proper perspective, it would be convenient to refer to the legislative and judicial background of the problem. We shall deal with important developments in their chronological order. These are:

(1) Article 286, as it existed1 before 1956;

(2) The two Travancore cases;2

(3) The Law Commission's 2nd Report, which used the word 'occasion', with intent to give the effect to the propositions laid down in the Travancore cases;3

(4) The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, passed with the same intent;4

(5) Case-law before Khosla's case;5

(6) Khosla's case;6

(7) 30th Report7 of the Law Commission;

(8) Our conclusion.8

1. Paras. 3.13A and 3.14, infra.

2. Para. 3.15 infra.

3. Para. 3.22, infra.

4. Para. 3.22, infra.

5. Para. 3.23, et seq, infra.

6. Para. 3.41, et seq, infra.

7. Para. 3.48, et seq, infra.

8. Para. 3.66, et seq, infra.

3.13A. Article 286 before 1956.-

Article 286(1) before its amendment by the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, was as follows:-

(1) No law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase takes place-

(a) outside the State; or

(b) in the course of the import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of the territory of India.

(Explanation not quoted).