https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160129 Article notes that Article 226 relief to condone delay in tax appeals cannot be used to secure refund-related advantage where the dealer had already collected the disputed tax from purchasers. The doctrine of unjust enrichment bars indirect relief that would shift the burden back to the public exchequer when the claimant has not borne the tax incidence. Section 33-BB of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act reinforces this position by denying refund of an invalid levy unless the dealer proves the tax was not passed on. The commentary also notes that an appellate authority, as a statutory creature, cannot disregard a tax entry still on the statute book. en-us Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:23:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160129 Article notes that Article 226 relief to condone delay in tax appeals cannot be used to secure refund-related advantage where the dealer had already collected the disputed tax from purchasers. The doctrine of unjust enrichment bars indirect relief that would shift the burden back to the public exchequer when the claimant has not borne the tax incidence. Section 33-BB of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act reinforces this position by denying refund of an invalid levy unless the dealer proves the tax was not passed on. The commentary also notes that an appellate authority, as a statutory creature, cannot disregard a tax entry still on the statute book. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160129