https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158051 Section 29-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act treated excess tax wrongly realised by a dealer as held in trust for the purchaser and required refund to that person in the prescribed manner. Where no refund procedure had been framed for the relevant period, the absence of machinery could not defeat substantive refund rights or create a forfeiture in favour of the State. A dealer who produced particulars showing repayment to purchasers was entitled to have those repayments verified, and only any unverified amount could be adjusted. The State could not treat the excess as permanently vested in it merely because the prescribed refund mechanism was unavailable. en-us Mon, 21 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:39:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158051 Section 29-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act treated excess tax wrongly realised by a dealer as held in trust for the purchaser and required refund to that person in the prescribed manner. Where no refund procedure had been framed for the relevant period, the absence of machinery could not defeat substantive refund rights or create a forfeiture in favour of the State. A dealer who produced particulars showing repayment to purchasers was entitled to have those repayments verified, and only any unverified amount could be adjusted. The State could not treat the excess as permanently vested in it merely because the prescribed refund mechanism was unavailable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 21 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158051