https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159859 A statutory suo motu revisional power meant to protect revenue could not be invoked at the assessee's instance, because section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act contemplated exercise only by the specified authority where the subordinate order prejudiced revenue. A writ under article 226 was maintainable where the State had no appeal and the impugned orders were said to be without jurisdiction. Amounts collected as Central sales tax and refunded under an illegal order could not be retained, since the exemption applied only to State sales tax and retention after passing on the tax burden would amount to unjust enrichment. The refunded sum had to be restored with interest. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:00:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159859 A statutory suo motu revisional power meant to protect revenue could not be invoked at the assessee's instance, because section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act contemplated exercise only by the specified authority where the subordinate order prejudiced revenue. A writ under article 226 was maintainable where the State had no appeal and the impugned orders were said to be without jurisdiction. Amounts collected as Central sales tax and refunded under an illegal order could not be retained, since the exemption applied only to State sales tax and retention after passing on the tax burden would amount to unjust enrichment. The refunded sum had to be restored with interest. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159859