https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159202 Refund of excess sales tax was available only to the claimant that actually bore the tax burden, and the statute placed the burden of proving that incidence on the applicant. An affidavit from the assessee's accounts manager stated that excess tax paid on purchase of HSD oil was not passed on to customers, and that evidence was neither rebutted by material nor rejected on a proper basis. As there was also no indication that the assessing authority examined the account books before refusing the claim, the record supported the finding that the tax incidence was suffered by the assessee. The refund claim was therefore maintainable and the evidentiary burden under section 23-B was discharged. en-us Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:11:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159202 Refund of excess sales tax was available only to the claimant that actually bore the tax burden, and the statute placed the burden of proving that incidence on the applicant. An affidavit from the assessee's accounts manager stated that excess tax paid on purchase of HSD oil was not passed on to customers, and that evidence was neither rebutted by material nor rejected on a proper basis. As there was also no indication that the assessing authority examined the account books before refusing the claim, the record supported the finding that the tax incidence was suffered by the assessee. The refund claim was therefore maintainable and the evidentiary burden under section 23-B was discharged. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159202