https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102365 A taxing statute may validly require a trader to surrender amounts wrongly collected as tax and provide for refund to the original payers, because entry 54 of List II includes ancillary and incidental power to prevent abuse of the taxing law. On that footing, sections 9-B(3) and 14-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 were within the State Legislature's competence and constitutionally valid. The absence of an express prohibition or penalty did not invalidate the forfeiture scheme, as the statutory structure itself implied that wrongful collections ought not to have been made. The challenge to the provisions therefore failed. en-us Tue, 10 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102365 A taxing statute may validly require a trader to surrender amounts wrongly collected as tax and provide for refund to the original payers, because entry 54 of List II includes ancillary and incidental power to prevent abuse of the taxing law. On that footing, sections 9-B(3) and 14-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 were within the State Legislature's competence and constitutionally valid. The absence of an express prohibition or penalty did not invalidate the forfeiture scheme, as the statutory structure itself implied that wrongful collections ought not to have been made. The challenge to the provisions therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 10 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102365