https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151230 Retrospective insertion of section 29(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as part of the principal Act from its insertion date and, on that basis, barred refund of tax or fee admitted by the dealer in its returns. The court noted that a writ of mandamus cannot compel an authority to act contrary to a statutory prohibition. It also held that, in Article 226 jurisdiction, an earlier writ order could be reviewed and recalled when a later retrospective amendment rendered that order erroneous on the face of the record. Rule 71 could not override or enlarge the statute. The refund direction was recalled. en-us Fri, 10 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jun 2013 18:19:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151230 Retrospective insertion of section 29(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as part of the principal Act from its insertion date and, on that basis, barred refund of tax or fee admitted by the dealer in its returns. The court noted that a writ of mandamus cannot compel an authority to act contrary to a statutory prohibition. It also held that, in Article 226 jurisdiction, an earlier writ order could be reviewed and recalled when a later retrospective amendment rendered that order erroneous on the face of the record. Rule 71 could not override or enlarge the statute. The refund direction was recalled. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 10 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151230