https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163583 A retrospective sales tax notification reducing the applicable rate to 0.5% prevailed over the general residuary non-refund clause in the parent notification, so excess tax collected at 1% had to be refunded. The court treated the retrospective amendment as a special later provision extending the reduced rate to the covered bullion purchases and held that the earlier non-refund wording could not defeat that specific benefit. It also held that the dispute was not about rate determination under section 59A(d), because the taxable rate was already admitted and the real controversy concerned refundability of excess collection. The bank was directed to repay the excess amount with interest. en-us Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:26:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163583 A retrospective sales tax notification reducing the applicable rate to 0.5% prevailed over the general residuary non-refund clause in the parent notification, so excess tax collected at 1% had to be refunded. The court treated the retrospective amendment as a special later provision extending the reduced rate to the covered bullion purchases and held that the earlier non-refund wording could not defeat that specific benefit. It also held that the dispute was not about rate determination under section 59A(d), because the taxable rate was already admitted and the real controversy concerned refundability of excess collection. The bank was directed to repay the excess amount with interest. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163583