SARJOO PKOSAD C. J.: The petitioner in this case is a company incorpora­ted and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its registered office at Bombay. It has applied for a writ of mandamus or any other appro­priate writ against the respondents, the State of Assam, the Superintendent of Taxes, Shillong and the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, prohibiting them from compelling the petitioner to get itself re­gistered as a dealer under the Assam Sales Tax Act and to restrain them from taking any action against the petitioner under the said Act. (2) On 5-8-1953, the petitioner received a notice from the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, asking it to get itself registered as a dealer under the Assam Sales Tax Act of 1947. This was followed by another notice dated 24-8-1953, from the Super­intendent of Taxes, Shillong. In that notice, it was claimed by the Superintendent of Taxes that under the provisions of the Assam Sales Tax Act, the State Government was authorised to levy tax from the dealer on all goods despatched to this State for the purpose of consumption. It appeared that the petitioner supplied goods to dealers as well as con­sumers in Assam for consumption in the State and as such the Superintendent of Taxes claimed that the petitioner was liable to registration and payment of sales taxes under the said Act. In reply, the Manager of the petitioner wrote to the Superintendent of Taxes that the petitioner was not a dealer carrying on business within the State, inasmuch as it had neither any factory nor any branch office within the State of Assam. The factories of the petitioner making supplies and the branch offices arranging sales were both outside this State. It was, therefore, claimed by the peti­tioner that it was not carrying on business within the State and was not a dealer within the terms of the Sales Tax Act so as to be liable to registration under the Act. It accordingly informed the Superin­tendent of Taxes that it should not be compelled to seek registration. The taxing Department however, insisted that the petitioner although a non-resident dealer did in fact supply goods to the dealers as well as consumers in the State of Assam for consum­ption in the State and as such was liable to registra­tion and payment of taxes under the Assam Sales Tax Act. The taxing Department however, insisted that the petitioner although a non-resident dealer did in fact supply goods to the dealers as well as consumers in the State of Assam for consum­ption in the State and as such was liable to registra­tion and payment of taxes under the Assam Sales Tax Act. In its letter, dated 24-11-1953, the Superin­tendent of Taxes pointed out that the goods were being delivered by the petitioner Company in Assam as a direct result of sale for the purpose of consum­ption therein and the Government of this State was as such entitled to levy tax even from non-resident dealers who despatched goods to this State for con­sumption therein. The jurisdiction of the depart­ment to tax did not depend upon the residence or domicile of the dealer but upon the fact that the goods were delivered in Assam for consumption. This fact constituted a sufficient nexus or territorial connection which conferred jurisdiction on the State Government to impose the tax in question. He also pointed out that the petitioner had already realised tax from the buyer firms in Assam which the petitioner was not authorised to do with­out being registered as a dealer under the Assam Sales Tax Act and the petitioner was in conse­quence liable to prosecution under S. 38 of the said Act. In view of these facts, the department insisted that the petitioner should get itself regis­tered. (3) The petitioner admits that the sale and supply of cement to dealers and consumers in the State of Assam for the purpose of consumption in the State are arranged by the branch office of the peti­tioner at Calcutta. The petitioner Company is the Sales Manager of the Associated Cement Company, Ltd. of Bombay. It avers that the Calcutta branch of the petitioner on receipt of orders from such dealers and consumers arranges to supply cement from various factories of the Associated Cement Companies, Ltd. situate in different parts of the country in the manner most convenient and practi­cable. The goods so supplied from outside are deli­vered to the dealers and consumers in the State of Assam. The goods so supplied from outside are deli­vered to the dealers and consumers in the State of Assam. It, however, urges that the relationship between the dealers and consumers in this State on the one hand and the petitioner on the other is that of one principal dealing with another and that very often the parties obtain actual delivery of the cement at the godowns of the Company situated in Calcutta and make their own arrangements for transporting it to Assam. On these grounds, it is suggested that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of the term 'dealer' under S. 2(3) of Assam Sales Tax Act. The petitioner also does not deny that it has collected sales tax from certain dealers in Assam but it asserts that these collections were made not by way of tax but by way of deposit and are subject to the condition that the amount will be refunded in the event of the supplies in question being held to be non-taxable by the State autho­rities! It is therefore contended on behalf of the petitioner that the claim of the department to get the petitioner registered under the Assam Sales Tax Act is in violation of Arts. 265, 301 and 304 of the Constitution and is also an infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19 (l)(g) of the Constitution. (4) The whole point therefore which arises for consideration in the case is whether the petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of S. 2(3) of the Assam Sales Tax Act. If the petitioner is a dealer, then the taxing authorities are entitled to compel the petitioner to get itself registered and to take appropriate proceedings against it under the law on its failure to do so. If, on the contrary, the peti­tioner is held not to be a dealer then the taxing authorities would have no jurisdiction to proceed against him under the said Act. It is important to remember that the petitioner admits that it supplies cement to dealers and consumers in the State of Assam for the purpose of consumption in the State. If, on the contrary, the peti­tioner is held not to be a dealer then the taxing authorities would have no jurisdiction to proceed against him under the said Act. It is important to remember that the petitioner admits that it supplies cement to dealers and consumers in the State of Assam for the purpose of consumption in the State. It, however, says that the sales actually take place in its various branches outside the State and it is only in pursuance of the sales that the goods are later delivered to the buyers in this State, It is therefore asserted that no transaction of sale or supply is carried on by the petitioner in the State of Assam. As I shall presently show, this assertion is untenable. Section 2(12) of the Act defines 'sale'. The first proviso to the section is very important : "Provided that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the general law relating to the sale of goods, the sale of any goods outside the State of Assam shall be deemed to have taken place in the State of Assam if such goods have, as a direct result of such sale, been actually deliver­ed in the State of Assam for the purpose of consumption therein." The proviso is in consonance with the explanation attached to Art. 286(l)(b) of the Constitution. The 'explanation' runs thus : "For the purposes of sub-cl. (a), a sale or purchase shall be deemed to have taken place in the State in which the goods have actually been delivered as a direct result of such sale or purchase for the purpose of consumption in that State, not­withstanding the fact that under the general law relating to sale of goods, the property in the goods has by reason of such sale or purchase passed in another State." The effect of those provisions obviously is that although sale of the goods within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act may have taken place out­side the State of Assam, if as a direct result of such sale or purchase, the goods are delivered for the purpose of consumption in this State, notwith­standing the general law, the sale would be deem­ed to have taken place in the State of Assam for the purpose of imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of goods. In other words, the law con­fers jurisdiction upon the State of Assam to tax all those goods which as a direct result of sales are delivered for the purpose of consumption in this State. It is the place of delivery of the goods in pursuance of sale which determines the right to impose the tax and not the fact that actually, under the general law or under the Sale of Goods Act, the interest in the goods had passed at some other place. This principle is now very well esta­blished. The matter then resolves into this that the petitioner as a direct result of sales, even though held outside the frontiers of this State, has been delivering goods for consumption in the State of Assam. In other words, the petitioner has been carrying on the business of selling and supplying goods in this State and is therefore a dealer with­in the meaning of the Assam Sales Tax Act. The word 'dealer' has been defined in S. 2(3) of the Act as follows : ' "Dealer" means any person who carries on the business of selling or supplying goods in the State whether for commission, remuneration or other­wise and includes any society, club or associa­tion which sells or supplies goods to its members." The words "carries on the business of selling or supplying goods in the State", are comprehensive enough to cover the transactions which the peti­tioner has been admittedly carrying on; namely, the selling and supplying of cement to dealers and consumers in this State. The petitioner tries to avoid liability by asserting that because he has no fixed branch office or factory in this State, there­fore, he cannot be regarded as a dealer carrying on business here. He suggests that the law con­templates some such fixed place of abode to make him a 'dealer'. The learned counsel on his behalf refers to certain rules framed under the Act and seeks to urge that the rules presuppose some fixed place of business in the State itself and in the ab­sence of any such fixed place, the petitioner can­not be regarded as a dealer. The definition of the term 'dealer' under the Act does not carry any such limitation and I find nothing in the rules to substantiate the contention of the petitioner. The definition of the term 'dealer' under the Act does not carry any such limitation and I find nothing in the rules to substantiate the contention of the petitioner. The jurisdiction to levy tax arises from the territorial nexus where the goods are delivered for consump­tion as a direct result of sale and purchase. The place of residence of the dealer is not at all material. (5) The above principles can be easily deduced from several decisions bearing on the interpretation of similar provisions under cognate Acts operating in other sister States of India as also on the inter­pretation of Art. 286 of the Constitution. I may refer in this connection to a decision of the Patna High Court to which I was myself a party in - 'Bengal Immunity Co., Ltd. v. State of Bihar', AIR 1953 Pat 87 (A). We pointed out there that the jurisdiction to tax does not depend on the resi­dence, or domicile of the assessee. The power of the State to tax extends to all matters properly within the sovereignty of the State. The jurisdiction to tax exists not only in regard to persons or pro­perty but also as regards the business done within the State. It is not necessary for the purpose of jurisdiction that the entire transaction of sale must have taken place within the frontiers of the State. The fact that the goods are delivered in a parti­cular State for consumption constitutes a sufficient nexus or territorial connection which confers juris­diction upon the Legislature of the State to impose the tax. We also pointed out there that the Sales Tax Act is in pith and substance not a law with respect to sale of goods but a law imposing tax on the sale of goods. The Act also does not tend to regulate inter-State or intra-State trade and commerce and is not therefore in violation of Art. 254 or 304 of the Constitution. The same principles were laid down in - 'Govindarajulu Naidu & Co. v. State of Madras', AIR 1953 Mad 116 (B), in connection with the Madras Sales Tax Act. There also, it was held that where the goods were delivered for consump­tion in a particular State that State had the power to impose a use tax or a purchase tax thereon, not­withstanding that the transaction of sale is extra-state. Mr. v. State of Madras', AIR 1953 Mad 116 (B), in connection with the Madras Sales Tax Act. There also, it was held that where the goods were delivered for consump­tion in a particular State that State had the power to impose a use tax or a purchase tax thereon, not­withstanding that the transaction of sale is extra-state. Mr. Ghose, on behalf of the petitioner has urged that the decision in 'the Bengal Immunity case (A)', is still under appeal to the Supreme Court and as such, no finality attaches to our pronounce­ment; but it may be pointed out that the Supreme Court itself has given its seal of approval to our interpretation of Art. 286 as contained in the aforesaid decision. I am referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in - 'State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd.', AIR 1953 SC 252 (C). Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri there held that cl. (2) of Art. 286 stands excluded as a result of the legal fiction enacted in the Explanation and the State in which the goods are actually delivered for consumption can impose tax on inter-State sales or purchases. The effect of the Explanation in regard to inter-State dealing is to invest what, in truth, is an inter-State transaction with an intra-State character in relation to the state of delivery and cl. (2) can, therefore, have no application. Once it is determined with the aid of the fictional test (namely, the test of delivery of the goods) that a particular sale or purchase has taken place within the taxing State, it follows, as a corollary, that the transaction loses its inter-State character and falls outside the purview of cl. (2), not because the definition in the Explanation is used for the pur­pose of cl. (2) but because such sale or purchase becomes in the eye of the law a purely local tran­saction. In other words, the test of sufficient terri­torial nexus is replaced by a simpler and more easily workable test. Are the goods actually deli­vered in the taxing State as a direct result of a sale or purchase for the purpose of consumption there? Then such sale or purchase shall be deem­ed to have taken place in the State and outside all other States. The latter States are prohibited from taxing the sale or purchase; the former alone is left free to do so. Then such sale or purchase shall be deem­ed to have taken place in the State and outside all other States. The latter States are prohibited from taxing the sale or purchase; the former alone is left free to do so. Thus multiple taxation of the same transaction by different States is also avoided. After the above exposition of the law by the Supreme Court, there is no room for any further doubt or controversy on the point. It is therefore clear beyond any doubt that the petitioner is a dealer carrying on the business of sale and supply of goods in this State and the transactions carried on by the petitioner are transactions of sale with­in the meaning of the Assam Sales Tax Act read with Art. 286 of the Constitution. Mr. Ghose sought to point out some distinction between the definition of 'sale' and 'dealer' in the Assam Sales Tax Act and in the Bihar Sales Tax Act with a view to avoid the application of the principles laid down in 'the Bengal Immunity case (A)'; but in my opin­ion, the distinction is without any difference and does not merit examination. (6) The application therefore fails and must be dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 250/-. I have already shown that the Assam Sales Tax Act was entirely within the competence of the State Legislature and in making the law, the Legislature has not violated any of the Articles of the Consti­tution nor has it affected any of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. It is now too late in the day to raise those contentions which stand suffi­ciently answered by the decisions aforesaid on sound and adequate grounds. (7) DEKA J. : I agree. dismissed.