My Lord, Judges in Md. Serajuddin, (1975) 2 SCC 47?
Five. Hon’ble Judges H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M. Hameedullah Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray.
“A Constitution Bench of this Court in Md. Serajuddin, (1975) 2 SCC 47 has held that expression ‘in the course’ implies not only a period of time during which the movement is in progress but postulates a connected relation. The relevant portion is extracted.”
“A sale in the course of export predicates a connection between the sale and export. No single test can be laid as decisive for determining that question. Each case must depend upon its facts. But it does not mean that distinction between transactions which may be called sales for export and sales in the course of export is not real. Where the sale is effected by the seller and the seller is not connected with the export which actually takes place, it is a sale for export. Where the export is the result of sale, the export being inextricably linked up with sale so that the bond cannot be dissociated without a breach of the obligations arising by statute, contract, or mutual understanding between the parties arising from the nature of the transaction the sale is in the course of export. In Nilgiri Plantations,  7 SCR 70 this Court found that the sales were intended to be complete without the export and as such it could not be said that the sales occasioned export. The sales were for export and not in the course of export.”
– Hon’ble Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Nirmal Kumar Parsan v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, [Civil Appeal No. 7864 of 2009].