https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155662 Sales tax could not be levied on royalty and extraction charges under an agreement for supply of bamboo and hardwood where the arrangement did not amount to a sale; the same principle applied to both commodities, and prospective demand or collection was restrained. Refund of tax already collected was refused because the petitioner did not plead or prove that the burden had not been passed on to consumers, and refund would have resulted in unjust enrichment. Section 33-BB of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was treated as reflecting that principle, so the writ succeeded only to the extent of preventing future levy. en-us Wed, 28 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:45:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155662 Sales tax could not be levied on royalty and extraction charges under an agreement for supply of bamboo and hardwood where the arrangement did not amount to a sale; the same principle applied to both commodities, and prospective demand or collection was restrained. Refund of tax already collected was refused because the petitioner did not plead or prove that the burden had not been passed on to consumers, and refund would have resulted in unjust enrichment. Section 33-BB of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was treated as reflecting that principle, so the writ succeeded only to the extent of preventing future levy. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 28 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155662