https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128274 The court held that levy on transactions up to 26 January 1950 was valid, while levy on later transactions was illegal, so the assessee could recover only the excess attributable to the unlawful component. It rejected the argument that a composite assessment had to be set aside in full, explaining that a refund suit concerns the amount actually paid under mistake or collected by coercion, not annulment of the assessment order itself. Where lawful and unlawful components are separable and the excess can be precisely identified, the plaintiff must prove the exact recoverable amount. The assessee failed to establish entitlement to refund of the whole sum, including payments made before assessment and in light of limitation. en-us Sun, 07 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Mar 2013 16:44:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128274 The court held that levy on transactions up to 26 January 1950 was valid, while levy on later transactions was illegal, so the assessee could recover only the excess attributable to the unlawful component. It rejected the argument that a composite assessment had to be set aside in full, explaining that a refund suit concerns the amount actually paid under mistake or collected by coercion, not annulment of the assessment order itself. Where lawful and unlawful components are separable and the excess can be precisely identified, the plaintiff must prove the exact recoverable amount. The assessee failed to establish entitlement to refund of the whole sum, including payments made before assessment and in light of limitation. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Sun, 07 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128274