https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102400 Section 23A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act was treated as a valid refund-control provision, not as a retrospective validation of an illegal levy. It did not authorise collection at an enhanced rate or cure excess collection; instead, it prevented a dealer who had passed the fee burden to purchasers from obtaining a refund and being unjustly enriched. The State Legislature was held competent to enact such a provision because the power to legislate on fee levy and collection includes incidental and ancillary rules governing refund and retention. The challenge failed, and the statutory bar on refund to dealers was sustained. en-us Mon, 19 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2025 18:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102400 Section 23A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act was treated as a valid refund-control provision, not as a retrospective validation of an illegal levy. It did not authorise collection at an enhanced rate or cure excess collection; instead, it prevented a dealer who had passed the fee burden to purchasers from obtaining a refund and being unjustly enriched. The State Legislature was held competent to enact such a provision because the power to legislate on fee levy and collection includes incidental and ancillary rules governing refund and retention. The challenge failed, and the statutory bar on refund to dealers was sustained. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Mon, 19 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102400