https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158826 Refund under the refund-control provision was not directed where the Deputy Commissioner's approval to withhold refund on prejudice-to-revenue grounds had been obtained during revision; the writ court did not compel repayment contrary to that approval. By contrast, penalty recovered under section 57 was ordered to be refunded because an earlier Division Bench had already declared sections 57, 58 and 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, and rule 75, ultra vires. The assessee was required to maintain separate accounts so recovery could be enforced if the State later succeeded. en-us Wed, 09 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:24:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158826 Refund under the refund-control provision was not directed where the Deputy Commissioner's approval to withhold refund on prejudice-to-revenue grounds had been obtained during revision; the writ court did not compel repayment contrary to that approval. By contrast, penalty recovered under section 57 was ordered to be refunded because an earlier Division Bench had already declared sections 57, 58 and 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, and rule 75, ultra vires. The assessee was required to maintain separate accounts so recovery could be enforced if the State later succeeded. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 09 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158826