https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153942 A subsisting direction had barred realisation of tax on cotton seeds for the relevant period, and the petitioners had already paid the levy. Refusal to refund would have left them worse off than similarly placed persons who had received repayment, especially when the factual plea on parity was not effectively denied. On that basis, the petitioners were held entitled to refund of the tax recovered on cotton seeds for 14 May 1964 to 27 February 1969, and the writ petitions succeeded with costs. en-us Tue, 14 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Aug 2013 18:12:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153942 A subsisting direction had barred realisation of tax on cotton seeds for the relevant period, and the petitioners had already paid the levy. Refusal to refund would have left them worse off than similarly placed persons who had received repayment, especially when the factual plea on parity was not effectively denied. On that basis, the petitioners were held entitled to refund of the tax recovered on cotton seeds for 14 May 1964 to 27 February 1969, and the writ petitions succeeded with costs. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 14 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153942