https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161361 A writ of mandamus could not be used to secure refund of entry tax collected under the statutory levy because Section 3-BB prescribed a complete forfeiture-and-refund mechanism. Refund from the State was available only after the statutory conditions were met, including a forfeiture order and compliance with the prescribed procedure. As no forfeiture order had been passed, the dealer's unilateral adjustment could not substitute for the statutory route, and the unchallenged assessment, rectification, and limitation-based rejection orders remained operative. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable for the refund relief sought, and mandamus was refused. en-us Mon, 03 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:01:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161361 A writ of mandamus could not be used to secure refund of entry tax collected under the statutory levy because Section 3-BB prescribed a complete forfeiture-and-refund mechanism. Refund from the State was available only after the statutory conditions were met, including a forfeiture order and compliance with the prescribed procedure. As no forfeiture order had been passed, the dealer's unilateral adjustment could not substitute for the statutory route, and the unchallenged assessment, rectification, and limitation-based rejection orders remained operative. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable for the refund relief sought, and mandamus was refused. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 03 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161361