Judgment : The judgment of the Court was delivered by MANCHANDA, J. - This is a case stated under section 11(1)of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The material facts are these : The assesses are dealers in brassware and scrap and carry on business at Farrukhabad in the State of U.P. The assesses, infer alia claimed that out of the sales totalling Rs. 35,907-1-3, goods worth Rs. 25,569 were sales in the course of export of goods outside the territory of India, they having been exported to Nepal and the remaining Rs. 10,537-15-9 were intra-State sales. The admitted facts are : (1) that the delivery of goods had taken place at Nepalganj, the rail-head terminus, which is situate in the State of U.P., (2) that the purchasers, who were dealers carrying on business in Nepal had themselves after taking delivery taken the goods into Nepal from Nepalganj, and that there was no direct rail link or other common carrier between the State of U.P. and Nepal In regard to gales totalling Rs. 25,569 as delivery of goods was made at the railway terminus of Nepalganj within the State of U.P., the Sales Tax Officer held that the sale must be deemed to have been effected within the State of U.P. and as such was assessable under the Act. The remaining sum of Rs. 10,337-15-9, which represented inter-State sales, was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act. Aggrieved, the assesses went up in appeal only in respect of the sales to Nepal parties. The Judge (Appeals), in view of certain circulars issued by the U.P. Government interpreting Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution, considered that it was essential to enquire whether the goods were exported outside India and for that purpose customs receipts, if any, would be relevant in order to show that goods which had moved from the 'U.P. dealer were the very goods which had crossed the border and had gone into Nepal for consumption there. He, therefore, remanded the case with a direction that if the assesses established this fact to the satisfaction of the Sales Tax Officer then sales of Rs. 25,569 would qualify for the exemption. This time it was the Commissioner of Sales Tax who was aggrieved and he took up the matter in revision. He, therefore, remanded the case with a direction that if the assesses established this fact to the satisfaction of the Sales Tax Officer then sales of Rs. 25,569 would qualify for the exemption. This time it was the Commissioner of Sales Tax who was aggrieved and he took up the matter in revision. The Judge (Revisions) was of the view that the circular of the U.P. Government dated 26th February, 1961, and the circular dated 9th January, 1962, issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax to all Sales Tax Officers, had no relevance to the transactions which had taken place before 9th January, 1961, and according to him, the legal position was that as delivery of goods had taken place at the rail-head which happened to be in U.P. the sales stood completed, and, therefore, there could be no question of the sale of the goods being in the course of export outside the territory of India. He, accordingly, set aside the order of the Judge (Appeals) and restored that of the Sales Tax Officer. Hence, this reference at the instance of the assesses and the questions referred are :- (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case mere delivery by the common carrier to the foreign buyers or their agents at railhead terminus at Nepalganj situated at the Indo-Nepal border within the State of Uttar Pradesh of goods moving for export pursuant to sales would disentitle the applicant from exemption of tax granted under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution ? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the export sales in which delivery of goods had been taken by foreign buyers at railhead terminus at Nepalganj within the State of U.P. could be deemed to be sales taking place in the course of export within the meaning of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ? At the outset, attention requires to be drawn to the assumptions on which the aforesaid questions proceed. Question No. 1 assumes : (1) that delivery of the goods by the assesses was made to a common carrier; and (2) that the common carrier delivered those goods to the foreign buyers or the agents at the railhead terminus; (3) and that those goods were moving for export pursuant to sales. Question No. 1 assumes : (1) that delivery of the goods by the assesses was made to a common carrier; and (2) that the common carrier delivered those goods to the foreign buyers or the agents at the railhead terminus; (3) and that those goods were moving for export pursuant to sales. On these assumptions the only question asked is whether mere delivery by the common carrier at the railhead terminus would disentitle the assesses to the exemption of tax granted under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. In substance, therefore, the question that we are called upon to answer is, whether pursuant to the sales when goods have been entrusted to a common carrier for export would they cease to be goods in the course of export merely because delivery is given by the common carrier to the foreign buyers within the State of U.P. ? The factum of delivery is only one of the factors to be taken into consideration, and that par se cannot be conclusive in establishing that the sale was not in the course of export of such goods. The Supreme Court in Stale of Travancore-Cochin v. Bombay Co. Ltd. [[1952] 3 S.T.C. 434] observed : "A sale by export thus involves a series of integrated activities commencing from the agreement of sale with a foreign buyer and ending with the delivery of the goods to a common carrier for transport out of the country by land or sea. Such a sale cannot be dissociated from the export without which it cannot be effectuated, and the sale and resultant export form parts of a single transaction. Of these two integrated activities, which together constitute an export sale, whichever first occurs can well be regarded as taking place in the course of the other. Assuming without deciding that the property in the goods in the present cases passed to the foreign buyers and the sales were thus completed within the State before the goods commenced their journey as found by the Sales Tax Authorities, the sales must, nevertheless, be regarded as having taken place in the course of the export and are, therefore, exempt under Article 286(1)(b). That clause, indeed, assumes that the sale has taken place within the limits of the State and exempts it if it takes place in the course of the export of the goods concerned." In The State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew-nut Factory [[1953] 4 S.T.C. 205], the Supreme Court reiterated that if a sale or purchase takes place either generally or by reason of the Explanation then if it takes place in the course of import or export no State not even the State within which such purchase or sale takes place can tax it by reason of Article 286(1)(b). Therefore, the stress was on the transaction of sale itself and whether there is a causal connection between the sale and the export. This aspect was further clarified by the Supreme Court in Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Co. v. Sales Tax Officer [[1964] 15 S.T.C. 753], where the two earlier cases were considered and it was pointed out : "A sale in the course of export predicates a connection between the sale and export, the two activities being so integrated that the connection between the two cannot be voluntarily interrupted, without a breach of the contract or the compulsion arising from the nature of the transaction. In this sense to constitute a sale in the course of export it may be said that there must be an intention on the part of both the buyer and the seller to export, there must be an obligation to export, and there must be an actual export. The obligation may arise by reason of statute, contract between the parties, or from mutual understanding or agreement between them, or even from the nature of the transaction which links the sale to export ......... And to occasion export there must exist such a bond between the contract of sale and the actual exportation, that each link is inextricably connected with the one immediately preceding it. Without such a bond, a transaction of sale cannot be called a sale in the course of export of goods out of the territory of India. There are a variety of transactions in which the sale of a commodity is followed by export thereof. At one end are transactions in which there is a sale of goods in India and the purchaser immediate or remote exports the goods out of India for foreign consumption. There are a variety of transactions in which the sale of a commodity is followed by export thereof. At one end are transactions in which there is a sale of goods in India and the purchaser immediate or remote exports the goods out of India for foreign consumption. For instance, the foreign purchaser either by himself or through his agent purchases goods within the territory of India and exports the goods and even if the seller has the knowledge that the goods are intended by the purchaser to be exported, such a transaction is not in the course of export for the seller does not export the goods, and it is not his concern as to how the purchaser deals with the goods. Such a transaction without more cannot be regarded as one in the'course of export because etymologically 'in the course of export' contemplates an integral relation or bond between the sale and the export. At the other end is a transaction under a contract of sale with a foreign buyer under which the goods may under the contract be delivered by the seller to a common carrier for transporting them to the purchaser. Such a sale would indisputably be one for export, whether the contract and delivery to the common carrier are effected directly or through agents. But in between lie a variety of transactions in which the question whether the sale is one for export or is one in the course of export, i.e., it is a transaction which has occasioned the export, may have to be determined on a correct appraisal of all the facts. No single test can be laid as decisive for determining that question. Each case must depend upon its facts." It is manifest that the single factor which the Judge (Revisions) has taken to be conclusive, i.e., delivery by the common carrier at the railhead terminus in Nepalganj, for holding that the sale was not in the course of export was clearly erroneous. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the matter is a complex one. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the matter is a complex one. Numerous other factors required to be taken into consideration, viz., the agreement for sale, if any, and the terms thereof; whether any obligation was imposed upon the purchaser to necessarily remove and take the goods into Nepal and whether the goods which the assesses entrusted to the common carrier were in fact exported to Nepal It was thus necessary to see whether there was a causal connection between the sale and the ultimate export and whether the sale had occasioned the export. In view, however, of the assumptions raised in question No. 1, there is no alternative but to answer that question by saying that mere delivery to the foreign buyers of goods at the railhead in Utter Pradesh which were moving for export pursuant to the sales did not disentitle the assesses to the exemption under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. The second question is inextricably linked with the first one and the answer to it will also have to be that delivery of goods to the foreign buyers at the railhead terminus at Nepalganj would not necessarily make such sales as sales not in the course of export within the meaning of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.