https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156087 A contingency deposit collected from pool sale dealers to cover a known purchase-tax exposure was treated as part of the auction terms, not an unlawful exaction. Because the dealer participated with notice, paid the deposit, and benefited from the arrangement, writ jurisdiction was held unsuitable for seeking refund, and promissory estoppel prevented the dealer from resiling. Differential treatment between internal pool sale dealers and exporters was justified by the distinct tax position of export sales, so no Article 14 violation was found. Refund relief was declined and the discrimination challenge failed. en-us Fri, 16 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:51:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156087 A contingency deposit collected from pool sale dealers to cover a known purchase-tax exposure was treated as part of the auction terms, not an unlawful exaction. Because the dealer participated with notice, paid the deposit, and benefited from the arrangement, writ jurisdiction was held unsuitable for seeking refund, and promissory estoppel prevented the dealer from resiling. Differential treatment between internal pool sale dealers and exporters was justified by the distinct tax position of export sales, so no Article 14 violation was found. Refund relief was declined and the discrimination challenge failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 16 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156087